Ps AM Maia 43 i yay 
jue ‘ 


WN 
yt 
ONC 


4 


ie 


pais 


tres 
RLV AS 


‘ie 


SEU 
i) 


Wh athe 
, a ny io Ha ‘ it i 


aa o 


* Wate 
pier nuit ae 


tit | 


aR AEA NEE 


HAN RE it 
a iy 
Mie 


ml 


Vy) ' 
OCA AIO 
ea ‘ye 


Ait Ae tate ls 
qv \ 
AO 
PHI OS 
can aig 


G 
SD q ay ah 


ea 
‘ i! Mi 


plc 
nh 


BAD 
mt 


pe ded 
At tat ii 


ne i ‘| 


A Wiis wipe Lill 4 Sap 
WW A a 


ALAN 
Vay 
ont 
TN ed 


yh 
aN 


Aye int 
nny wih oh i 
iF ain 
at 
Wi 


ely " 
AM Oa HA 
' f 0,9°9 

ihe atta rh Ptitate ty] 


Pyiria) 


ae 
OR 


Nie 
lies 


qui hh 
a it i ‘ i 


is 

i 

(YR j 
Hee ee ay 


iii 


19, o ui 
<5, Rant 
fai Not 


thet) 
Miata 
ce) eh 
aad 

ie 


tt 
int 


tet 


in 
i eililat ye 


ne es, 
nt a wc Hb ya 


Mah 


Ung 
ENE f) 


u 
rie Ny | ) 
uf Mn Ne 


t 
hi as 
oh i mt Bh 
BURAK KEK va 
Hii as ay 


AAA ALBA Me) 
HENAN SAAN 


hg CH MM 
i ian hye Whats} Sh a} i, 
LA yviaii 1h 
AWRY 
iiss Mon ialte 
Duh) 1 


a) rauiditet iy 
iW it oleh ios 
nn ‘ 

" Pints! 


in 
nant 
Avaryay 
HARRI 
vos saat 
VS 
aty 


ne 
ayy 
Va 


oy 


a Ny 
ay 


POM eR HHA FONE a) 


CBRL 


ae . 
ORCL I) om 
Wr bt 


mii a t 1h, i H SiN} 1h 


' ‘ 
ua tele ea 


Phen 


LOM 
“ 


anata 


Sa 


Al 
ay 


CH 


yey ‘ytatata et 
abe: sig 4 * 


Ahk 
aati 48 


aaa 


Hy hi ih iit 
Prien 4 
aS a Hy iy’ oii 


iy! Hh i MAKEN ALi 
et vient f 
ilage 
‘ai aalty ‘\ nhs 
' 4 EHNA) 0 an 
ieee ” Aniials 


Daa ahs 


DUKE UNIVERSITY 


DIVINITY SCHOOL 
LIBRARY 


GIFT OF 
HILRIE SHELTON §8Mipe 
PROFESSOR, DUKE DIVINITY SCHOOL 
1931-1963 
JAMES B. DUKE PROFESSOR 
1953-1963 


Digitized by the Internet Archive 
in 2023 with funding from 
Duke University Libraries 


https://archive.org/details/replytolettertorOOhoba .. 


ae . 
REPLY 


A LETTER 


TO 


THE RIGHT REY. BISHOP HOBART, 


QCCASIONED BY THE 


STRICTURES ON BIBLE SOCIETIES, CONTAINED IN HIS LATE ADDRESS 
TO THE CONVENTION OF NEW-YORK, 


BY A CHURCHMAN OF THE DIOCESE OF NEW-YORK; 


in 


A LETTER 
TO THAT GENTLEMAN. 


= 


BY CORRECTOR. y=". 


NEW-YORK : . 
PRINTED BY T. AND J.SWORDS, 
No. 99 Pearl-street. 


1823. 


From the great haste in which this work was got up, not more than 
three weeks having elapsed from the publication of the Letter to which it 
is a reply until its appearance, it is due to the writer and the printers to 


state, that 


the necessary attention could not be paid to the correction of 


the proof sheets ; in consequence of which many errors haye passed. The 
following have been noticed :— 


Page 3, 
4, 
28, 


38, 
49, 


50, 


51, 
53, 


- 62, 
68, 
- 69, 


74, 
80, 
88, 
91, 
97, 


17, 
80, 
89, 
90, 
93, 


96, 
97, 


line 4 from bottom, dele “ at that time.” 

line 25, for “‘ your” read his. 

line 1, dele ‘‘ both.” 

line 6, for “ on” read Zo. 

line 7, after “ word” insert of. 

line 2, for ‘* ten” insert nine. 

line 19, dele * the.” 

line 11 from bottom, the following note should have been in- 
serted: ‘The Rev. Dr. Feltus also delivered an 
s‘ Address before the Auxiliary New-York Bible 
* and Common Prayer Book Society.” 

line 18, for “ both” read these. 

line 19, dele ** both.” 

line 15, after “ lectures” read and on all other occasions of 
public worship. 

line 7, for “ instruction” read inspection. 

line 15, for “‘ even’ read ever. 

line 3, for “ characterized” read distinguished. 

line 4, for “ by” read with. 

line 15, after “ Bible Society” dele is.” 

line 4 from bottom, after “ Fatuacy” insert which. 

line 2, for “ Bible Societies” read Bible Society. 

last line, dele “ annually offered.” 

line 5, for “ based upon” read supported by. 

line 17, for “ justify the end by the means” read justify the 
means by the end. 


The following are in part of the edition only. 


line 5, for ** Mant” read Marsh. 

line 3, for ** They” read These. 

line 2, for “ professor” read professors. 

line 5, for “ imperious” read injurious. 

line 14, for “‘ pressed” read urged. 

line 11 from bottom, for “acted” read act. 
line 18, for “ debensoribus” read defensoribus, 
line 1, for Bishop Hobart” read ie. 

line 6, for “ knew” read know. 

line 9, for ** Bishop Hobart” read him 


A REPLY, &c. ci 


— Ie 


SIR, 


HILE reading your Letter to Bishop Hobart, I marked 
in the margin, against particular passages, the words— 
misrepresentations—fallacies—rhapsodies—violation of deli- 
cacy—intolerant—disingenuous—ungentlemanly, and unchris- 
tian ; and, however unpleasant the task, 1 deem it due to 
truth and justice to hold your Letter up to view, with these, 


‘Its blushing honours, thick upon it.” 


The epithets with which I have characterized a production, 
on which, I suspect, you set no little value, are, doubtless, 
severe; but I am perfectly satisfied, that, before I conclude, 
I shall give ample evidence that they are true, and merited. 
And I am not to be accounted your enemy, because I tell you 
the truth. You have thought proper violently to assail the 
principles and conduct of “ your Bishop: you cannot be 
surprised if they are frankly and zealously defended. 

Since the appearance of your Letter, | have often heard 
the inquiry—Who is this that assumes the high-sounding 
title, ““ A Churchman of the Diocese of New-York ?? And 
from those acquainted with Church affairs, I have uniformly 
heard the inquiry answered by another—Do you not recollect 
an individual, who, several years since, when comparatively 
a boy, made his appearance in a Convention of the Diocese 
of New-York; at that time composed, in addition to the 
clergy, of some lay gentlemen of the first talents and standing 
in society ; and, presuming, as it seemed, ona name worthy 
of all consideration, in an assemblage, and on an occasion, 


4 


that should have inspired a youth with that trembling mo- 
desty which ingenuous youth always feels, and by which in- 
genuous youth, and even mature age, is always adorned—on 
ecclesiastical topics, which venerable men approached with 
diffidence and hesitancy, proclaimed his opinions with a pert- 
ness, a boldness, and a dogmatism, that astonished and con- 
founded his auditors: who then commenced the work of 
meddling and of mischief; and, in every successive Conven- 
tion which he has attended, has been true to himself, but, at 
the same time, so utterly unfortunate as to possess no influ- 
ence, and almost to mar every measure which he advocated ; 
and whose hostility to Bishop Hobart, commencing with his 
appointment to the Episcopate, in 1811, has been manifested, 
at every opportunity, to the present day ?—Is it possible, I 
asked, that you are describing “a Churchman, of the Diocese 
of New-York ?” 

It is a little remarkable, that, in your Letter, you quote, 
and evidently with much self-gratification, the Report of the 
“ Bedford Prayer Book Society,” and introduce again and 
again the venerable name of Governor Jay. 

Pardon me, Sir; the intention, the quo animo, of a person 
who appears as you do, a voluntary and eager witness against 
your Diocesan, and assailant of his official principles and con- 
duct, is all-important, as to the credit to be given to his tes- 
timony, and the weight to be adjudged to his opinions; and 
your probable motives cannot be ascertained unless we know 
you. My reluctance thus to present you in propria perso- 
na is much diminished by the consideration, that, if your 
character is not much mistaken, a ruling passion in the hu- 
man breast is highly flattered, by being even thus pointed out 
as the author of “ A Letter to the Right Rev. Bishop Hobart, 
occasioned by his late Charge’? (dddress, you should have 
written ; you ought to know the distinction) ‘‘ to the Convene 
tion of New-York.” 

I proceed to the task of noticing the misrepresentations— 
the fallacies—the rhapsodies—the violation of delicacy—the 
intolerance—the disingenuous, wngentlemanly, and unchristian 


_- 


5 


spirit and language, by which, I am truly sorry to say, your 
Letter to your Diocesan is characterized. 


-MISREPRESENTATIONS. 


1. Your Letter commences with the MISREPRESENTATION, 
that, in the Address of Bishop Hobart, “ the conduct of Gover- 
nor Jay and General Clarkson is represented as erroneous in 
principle, and injurious in its tendency to that Church which, 
it is admitted, they adorn; that the Bishops have betrayed 
their sacred trust ; and that a host of laymen, whose talents, 
piety, and rank, reflect lustre on our Church, are sapping her 
foundations, and violating their duty as Christians, and as 
Churchmen.” 

That we may have this point, and several others which will 
come under review, fairly at issue, let me present at length, 
which you have not done, the extract, from Bishop Hobart’s 
Address to the Convention, relative to Bible Societies. 


‘“ A strict adherence to these principles and views,’’ (con- 
tained in an extract from an Address of Bishop White,) “ stated 
with so much interest, must indeed be considered as ‘ required 
by the exigences, and even the existence of our Church.’ The 
spirit of them seems to me applicable to a// associations for 
religious purposes where Episcopalians unite with those ‘ se- 
vered from them by diversity of worship, discipline, or by 
contrariety in points of doctrine.’ We ought indeed to ‘ treat 

~every denomination in their character as a body with respect, 
and the individuals composing it with degrees of respect or 
esteem, or of affection, in proportion to the ideas entertained 
of their respective merits.’ But a due regard both to prin- 
ciple and sound policy, and even Christian harmony, requires, 
in the judgment of him who addresses you, that we avoid all 
intermixture with them in efforts for religious purposes; and 
that for the propagation of the Christian faith, by whatsoever 
particular mode, we associate only among ourselves, and act 
exclusively under the guardianship and authority of our own 
Church. 


6 

* The views founded on this opinion, the propriety of which 
seems to me so obvious, which originally influenced me with 
respect to the union of Episcopalians with other denomina- 
tions in Bible Societies, have gained strength by subsequent 
reflection and observation. These societies seem to me er- 
roneous in the principle on which, in order to secure general 
co-operation, they are founded—the separation of the Church 
From the Word of God—of the sacred volume from the ministry, 
the worship, and the ordinances which it enjoins as of Divine 
institution, and the instruments of the propagation and preser- 
vation of Gospel truth. As it respects Churchmen, the ten- 
dency of these societies has appeared to me not less injurious 
than the principle on which they are founded is erroneous. 
They inculcate that general liberality which considers the 
differences among Christians as non-essential ; and they thus 
tend to weaken the zeal of Episcopalians in favour of those 
distinguishing principles of their Church which eminently en- 
title her to the appellation of apostolical and primitive. 

“The success of institutions which are erroneous in the prin- 
ciple on which they are founded, or in the measures which 
they adopt, cannot vindicate them; except on the maxim, that 
‘ the end justifies the means.’ Nor is this success to be con- 
sidered as evidence of the favour of Heaven; for then, divine 
sanction would be obtained for many heretical and schismati- 
cal sects which, at various times, have obtained great popula- 
rity, and corrupted and rent the Christian Church, 

“It is a satisfaction to me, that in withholding my support 
from Bible Societies, I act with those in the highest stations 
in the Church from which we are descended, and with the 
great body of its Clergy.* But it is a source of painful regret 


* “The names of the following Bishops of the Church of England and Ireland ap- 
pear among the supporters of the British and Foreign Bible Society :— 

“ Most Rev. Poer Trench, Archbishop of Tuam; Honourable and Right Rev. 
Shute Burrington, Bishop of Durham; Right Rev. John Buckner, Bishop of Chi- 
chester; Right Rev. Thomas Burgess, Bishop of St. David’s; Right Rev. John 
Fisher, Bishop of Salisbury; Right Rev. Henry Bathurst, Bishop of Norwieh; 
Honourable and Right Rev. Henry Ryder, Bishop of Gloucester; Honourable and 
Right Rev. Thomas Lewis O‘Beirne, Bishop of Meath; Honourable and Right 


a 


to find myself differing, on this subject, from many of the 
Clergy and members of our own communion whom J greatly 
esteem and respect. 1 would wish to guard against the sup- 
position of any design on my part to censure those Episcopa- 
lians who deem these societies worthy of their support, and 
the proper channels of their pious munificence. Among the 


Rey. Charles Lindsay, Bishop of Kildare; Honourable and Right Rev. William 
Knox, Bishop of Derry—10. 

“ The names of the following do not appear among the supporters of the British 
and Foreign Bible Society :-—= 

** Right Honourable and Most Rev. Charles Manners Sutton, Archbishop of 
Canterbury; Right Honourable and Most Rey. Edward Venables Vernun, Arch- 
bishop of York; Most Rev. Lord John George Berisford, Archbishop of Armagh; 
Most Rey. William Magee, (author of the work on the Atonement), Archbishop 
of Dublin; Right Honourable and Most Rev. Richard Laurence, (author of the 
celebrated Bampton Lectures on the Articles), Archbishop of Cashell; Right Ho- 
nourable and Right Rev. William Howley, Bishop of London; Right Rey. George 
Tomline, Bishop of Winchester; Right Rev. William Henry Majendie, Bishop of 
Bangor; Right Rev. Richard Beadon, Bishop of Bath and Wells; Right Rey, 
John Kaye, Regius Professor of Divinity, Cambridge, Bishop of Bristol; Right Rev. 
Samuel Goodenough, Bishop of Carlisle; Right Rev. George Henry Law, Bishop 
of Chester; Right Rev. Bowyer E. Sparke, Bishop of Ely; Right Rev. William 
Carey, Bishop of Exeter; Right Rev. George Isaac Huntingford, Bishop of He- 
reford ; Honourable and Right Rev. J. Cornwallis, Bishop of Litchfield and Coven- 
try; Honourable and Right Rev. George Pelham, Bishop of Lincoln; Right Rev. 
William Van Mildert, Bishop of Landaff; Honourable and Right Rev. Edward 
Legze, Bishop of Oxford; Right Rev. Herbert Marsh, Bishop of Peterborough; 
Right Rev. Walker King, Bishop of Rochester; Right Rey. John Luamoore, 
Bishop of St. Asaph ; Right Rey. #. H. W. Cornwall, Bishop of Worcester; Right 
Rey. George Murray, Bishop of Sodor and Mann; Honoursble and Right Rev. 
R. Ponsonby, Bishop of Down and Connor; Right Rev. William Bisset, Bishop of 
Raphoe; Right Rev. Mathanael Alexander, Bishop of Clogher; Right Rev. George 
De La Poer Beresford, Bishop of Kilmore; Right Rey. James Saurin, Bishop of 
Dromore ; Right Rev. ftobert Fowler, Bishop of Ossory ; Right Rev. Lord Roberz 
‘Tottenham, Bishop of Ferns; Right Rev. Thomas Elrington, Bishop of Limerick; 
Honourable and Right Rev. Richard Bourke, Bishop oi W:terford; Honourable 
and Right Rev. Thomas P. Lawrence, Bishop of*Cork; Right Rev. Charles Mun- 
gan Warburton, Bishop of Cloyne; Right Rev. Richard Mant, Bishop of Killaloe ; 
Right Rev. John Leslie, Bishop of Elphin; Right Rev. Christopher Butson, Bishop 
of Clonfert; Right Rev. James Verchoyle, Bishop of Killala. To whom are to be 
added the Bishops of the Scotch Episcopal Church: Right Rey. George Gleie, 
Primus, Bishop of Brechin; Right Rev. Alexander Jolly, Bishop of Moray ; Right 
Rev. Daniel Sandford, Bishop of Edinburgh; Right Rev. Patrick Torry, Bishop 
of Dunkeld; Right Rev. William Skinner, Bishop of Aberdeen; Right Rev. David 
Low, Bishop of Ross. Total 45. 


8 


Episcopal laymen of this description, I recognise in the Pre- 

sident and acting Vice-President of the American Bible So- 

ciety, individuals who are not for a moment to be suspected 

of acting from any other principle than a sense of duty, and 

whose: pure and elevated characters adorn the Church of 
which they are members. My object is not to censure others, 

but, in the discharge of my official duty, to state and defend 

the principles on which | think Churchmen should act in their 

efforts for the propagation of the Gospel ; and to ask for those 

who do act on these principles, the credit of an adherence to 

the dictates of conscience, and an exemption from the impu- 

tation of being unfriendly to the distribution of the oracles of 
truth. No imputation can be more unjust, injurious, or un- 

kind. It is not to the distribution of the Bible, but to the mode 

of distribution that our objections apply. We deem ourselves 

not warranted in sanctioning what appears to us a departure 

from the apostolic mode of propagating Christianity—in the 

separation of the sacred volume from the ministry, the ordi- 

nances, and the worship of that mystical body which its Di- 

vine Founder has constituted the mean and the pledge of sal- 

vation to the world. And we think that Episcopalians will. 
best preserve their attachment to the distinctive principles of 
their apostolic Church, and thus best advance the cause of 
primitive Christianity, and most effectually avoid all collision 

with their fellow Christians who differ from them, by associ- 

ating for all‘religious purposes only among themselves.” _ 


Now let me ask every candid man, what is there in this 
that will warrant the violent and injurious attack which you 
have made on Bishop Hobart, and particularly the charge, 
stated by you as a great offence, of having represented “ the 
conduct of Governor Jay and General Clarkson, and the. 
Bishops, and a host of laymen, as erroneous in principle, and 
‘injurious in its tendency ??»—What is there but the frank (he 
owed this to his character) and earnest, but mild and digni- 
fied, avowal (he owed this to his official duty) of his senti- 
ments as to the course which Episcopalians should pursue in 


9 


propagating the Gospel? And, for this, must he be bearded 
(I ask pardon of myself for descending to the style of your 
Letter, however appropriate in this case) by an anonymous 
assailant? Could he have carried delicacy to those, from 
whom he deeply lamented to differ, further, without the en- 
tire prostration to them of his own conscientious opinions ? 
Could he with more modesty and mildness, without total for- 
getfulness of self-respect and official character, have pleaded 
for the toleration of exercising his own judgment, and main- 
taining his own honest views? With respect to the offence 
against “ Governor Jay and General Clarkson, and the Bi- 
shops, and a host of others,” surely there is a great difference 
between saying to individuals—You are erroneous in prin- 
ciple, your conduct is injurious—and saying to them, mildly 
and courteously, (which, in substance, Bishop Hobart has 
done,)—Gentlemen, I must think it the duty and the policy 
of Episcopalians, while they exercise kindness and respect 
towards their fellow-Christians, to act, in religious affairs, un- 
der the guidance and authority of their own Church, and ex- 
clusively to support the institutions for the promotion of re- 
ligion, which she has provided. I think this the best mode of 
preventing collision with other denominations, and of main- 
taining our own principles—of preserving inviolate both truth 
and charity. I believe the principle on which Bible Societies 
are founded—the studious, and explicit, and solemn separa- 
tion of the Church of God from the Word of God; of the 
sacred Scriptures from Christian doctrine, ministry, and wor- 
ship ; so much so, as to abstain, in all their proceedings, from 
any recognition of those characteristics of the divinely-con- 
stituted Church of the Redeemer—is erroneous; being a de- 
parture from the mode which the Apostles practised in pro- 
pagating Christianity, who united what Bible Societies, in the 
principle of their organization, and in all their measures, se- 
parate, the inspired Word, with that mystical body of Christ, 
to whose guardianship this Word was committed. I believe 
that Bible Societies are injurious in their tendency, as calcu- 
lated, by the amalgamation of all religious sects, and by the 
B « 


om 


10 


extreme liberality which, in the addresses, and the reports, 
and the speeches, that are made, and which form a vital part 
of the system, is inculcated, to weaken the attachment of 
Episcopalians to the distinguishing principles of their own 
Church. I have not the least doubt, gentlemen, that you very 
conscientiously think otherwise, and deem these views er- 
roneous, and these apprehensions unfounded, and that you 
support Bible Societies from a strong sense of duty. It gives 
me pain to differ from you. I only wish for the admission of 
acting according to views of duty equally conscientious—for 
toleration, in my preference of institutions under the guidance 
and control of my own Church, which make ample provision 
for propagating the Word of God in connexion with the doc- 
trine, ministry, and worship of the divinely-constituted body 
of Christ ; without being subjected to the injurious and unkind 
imputation of being unfriendly to the distribution of the Oracles 
of Truth. 

This is what Bishop Hobart has said, and only this; and 
for this you have violently assailed him, representing him as 
charging “ Governor Jay and General Clarkson, and a host of 
others, with being erroneous in principle, and their conduct 
injurious in tendency ;” and with representing his brethren 
the Bishops, as “‘ betraying their sacred trust,”? ‘ sapping the 
foundations of the Church’?—“ blind leaders of the blind.’ 

The art of this is very apparent; for if, at the outset, you 
could convict Bishop Hobart of being thus rude, arrogant, and 
calumnious, little credit would be due to his opinions, and his 
official influence (this indeed would be a great point gained) 
would be totally lost. And, unfortunately, there are Pro- 
testants, and even those who style themselves Churchmen, 
who act upon the principle, stigmatized as Jesuitical, that the 
end justifies the means. 

. 2. In alliance with the above misrepresentation, you MISRE- 
PRESENT Bishop Hobart, as artfully, and, of course, smtention- 
ally, bringing forward Bishop White as concurring with him in 
opinion respecting Bible Societies, when Bishop Hobart must 


Il 


have known that the fact was otherwise. And so, one would 
think, must every one else who has attended to this subject, 
on which Bishop White has so frequently and decidedly ex- 
pressed himself. Hence appears the absurdity involved in 
your imputation of this unjustifiable conduct in Bishop Ho- 
bart. You will allow him, I presume, common sense. Now 
what" more absurd, than that he should represent Bishop 
White as opposed to Bible Societies, when, in the identical 
Address from which he quotes, there is an explicit testimony 
in their favour ? According to your usual custom, you indeed 
insinuate that he supposed that the Address of Bishop White 
might not be known in New-York. “ Happily,” you say, “ the 
copy of the Address from which you (Bishop Hobart) quote, 
is not the only one which has reached New-York: and yet 
ihe Address was published in the Christian Journal printed in 
that city, by those whom you are pleased to denominate 
Bishop ‘Hobart’s publishers, before the appearance of his 
Address! What fatuity could have led him, under these cir- 
cumstances, to represent Bishop White, contrary to the very 
words of his Address, as opposed to Bible Societies ? 
But no such representation was made. ‘The extract from 
Bishop White’s Address is introduced by Bishop Hobart, in 
immediate connexion with remarks on the calls for spiritual 
aid, particularly for Missionary. labours, by destitute Epis- 
copalians. ‘Then follows the extract from Bishop White’s 
Address, which Bishop Hobart commends in the strongest 
terms, and in which the former venerable prelate statés as a 
principle which should regulate Episcopalians, ‘ to avoid all 
intermixture of. administration with other denominations, in 
what concerns the faith, the worship, or the discipline of the 
Church.” Here then is the general principle which Bishop 
White, in the extract, applies in sundry particulars, but nof, 
of course, in respect to Bible Societies. What is the offence 
of Bishop Hobart? Simply, the liberty which he takes to 
state his opinion, that this general principle may be extended, 
beyond the cases mentioned by Bishop White, to all religious 
‘institutions not under the ex¢lusive control of Episcopalians, 


12 


Had he a right so to do? What more common, than to 
strengthen one’s cause by attempting to show that the prin- 
ciples of those who differ from you favour that cause ?. It is 
the argumentum ad hominem; in this case deriving greater 
sanction from the exalted character of the individual? Was 
this done in modest and respectful terms? What says Bishop 
Hobart, in reference to Bishop White’s remarks? “ The spi- 
rit of them seems to me applicable to all associations for reli- 
gious purposes, where Episcopalians unite with those ‘severed 
from them by diversity of worship, discipline, or by contra- 
riety in points of doctrine.’ We ought indeed to ‘ treat every 
denomination in their character as a body with respect, and 
the individuals composing it with degrees of respect or esteem, 
or of affection, in proportion to the ideas entertained of their. 
respective merits.’ But a due regard both to principle and 
sound policy, and even Christian harmony, requires, in the 
judgment of him who addresses you, that we avoid all inter- 
mixture with them in efforts for religious purposes; and that 
for the propagation of the Christian faith, by whatsoever par- 
ticular mode, we associate only among ourselves, and act ex- 
clusively under the guardianship and authority of our own 
Church.” Bishop Hobart does not extend the remarks of 
Bishop White literally, but the “ spirit of them,” to all asso- 
ciations, &c. &c.; and even this he qualifies, by the expres- 
‘sions, certainly not presuming, “ it seems to me”—* in the 
judgment of him who addresses you.” He evidently thought 
that Bishop White’s principles, strictly and eminently cor- 
rect, are ‘required by the exigences, and even the existence > 
of our Church.” He deemed it.of importance to bring those 
principles to support his own views. Whether they can be so 
applied, is a matter of opinion. Bishop Hobart states his 


opinion in the affirmative, but in terms as modest as could 
well be used. 


3. But in the very act of representing Bishop Hobart as inten- 
tionally misstating Bishop White’s principles, you MISREPRE- 
sent the occasion which called them forth. You express your 


13 


belief that Bishop White’s “ remarks respecting ‘ an inter- 
mixture of administrations,’ arose from the circumstance of a 
Presbyterian clergyman having preached from an Episcopal 
pulpit, shortly before the sitting of the Convention ;”” thus as- 
signing these remarks to a local and insulated fact. Whereas 
Bishop White, in his Address, which of course was before you, 
brings them forward in a most solemn: and affecting manner, 
as “matured by the long experience of his minisiry,’’ and. of 
an intimate share in the counsels and business of the Church, 
I am not astonished that you should wish to diminish the force. 
of these remarks. Satisfied I am that your Church principles 
present no powerful obstacles to a complete ‘“ admixture -of 
administrations” in what concerns the ministry and worship 
of the Church. Those who are acquainted with your opinions 
with respect to the Church, must surely smile at your assum- 
ing the high-and orthodox appellation of ‘“‘ Churchman.” 


4, 1t is another leading purpose of your Letter, to misREPRE- 
sent Bishop Hobart, as having attacked Bible Societies ; by 
which you evidently mean, an unprovoked, and unnecessary, 
and violent attempt, to expose and to injure these institutions. 
Tn this sense, he has made no attack on Bible Societies, A 
Pastoral Letter on this subject was published by him (1815,) 
and contained a dispassionate exhibition of the reasons for 
distributing the Bible and the Common Prayer Book, and of 
the expediency of Episcopalians associating for this purpose 
among themselves. This Letter was not unnecessary; for at 
this time the project of the American Bible Society to be 
placed in Philadelphia was formed, and attempts were making 
to draw Episcopalians into the measure. A subsequent Pas- 
toral Letter was published, when these attempts were renew- ~ 
ed, at the formation of the American Bible Society in this 
city. Bishop Hobart would not have acted the part of a 
faithful pastor, if he had not endeavoured to guard the Epis- 
copalians of his diocese against measures which appeared 
to him incorrect and inexpedient, and to excite them to those 
which he judged were wise, and politic, and correct. ‘These 


14 

Pastoral Letters were assailed. 1 use the term assailed, be- 
cause misrepresentation and violence characterized the pub- 
lications against him. Some of these were answered. But 
to one of them, full of gross misrepresentation and scurrility, 
there has been, as I believe, no reply. It was published on 
the eve of a meeting of a Convention of the Church, and put 
into the hands of the members, and forwarded to leading 
Episcopalians throughout the state.* I recognise in your 
present Letter the same spirit that distinguished the publica- 
tion to which J allude, and I think I do not mistake as to their 
common author. It was not answered—you may think, be- 
cause it was unanswerable. But there may be another rea- 
son, which, I believe, is the true one—an unwillingness to 
prolong a controversy with an opponent of so little candour 
and so much violence. 

From the year 1816, when- Bishop Hobart delivered an 
Address to the New-York Auxiliary Bible and Common Prayer 
Book Society, until the meeting of the last Convention, as far 
as I know, he has been silent ; notwithstanding abundant pro- 
vocations occurred in the ere the speeches, the news- 
paper remarks, that have been published. And was there no 
eause for his last Address? Let me take from your Letter 
the following passage, contained in an Address delivered the 
Jast spring (1822,) to the American Bible Society, by its 
President :-— 


‘ Phe Apostles,’ says Governor Jay, in his late Address, 
‘“ were opposed in preaching the Gospel, but they neverthe- 
less persisted—we are opposed in dispersing the Scriptures, 
which convey the knowledge of it—and let us ‘follow their 
“example. An eminent ancient counsellor gave excellent ad- 
vice to their adversaries, and his reasoning affords salutary 
admonition to our opponents. That advice merits attention, 
and was concluded in the following memorable words :—‘ Re- 


* Just as the Let/er is ushered forth, immediately previous to the meeting of 
the General Convention, and sent to the clergy. 


15 
frain from these men and let them alone,—for if- this counsel 
or this work be of men, it will come to naught; but if it be 


of God, ye cannot overthrow it,—lest haply ye be found to 
fight pene God.’ ? 


. Here Bishop Hobart found the opponents’ of the Bible So- 
siety charged, in an Address delivered to a “ great national 
jnstitution” by its president, and which, by the agency of this 
institution, was to be circulated throughout the Union, and 
throughout the world, with “ opposition to the dispersion of 
the Scriptures”—with “ fighting against God.” 

Did Bishop Hobart issue a defensive pamphlet? Did he 
have recourse to any mode of defence calculated to awaken 
controversy? In an Address to the Convention near six 
months after, on an occasion of official duty, he merely ex- 
plained the principles which he thought should regulate Epis- 
copalians in their efforts for propagating the Gospel, and de- 
fended himself, and those with whom he acted, from the 
charge of being “ opposed to the distribution of the Scrip- 
tures.””> So far from the haste which would have character- 
ized an assailant of the Bible Society, his Address was not 
published until some months after its delivery ; and its circu- 
lation would not have extended beyond the limits to which 
such. Addresses are usually confined, if the publication, in 
terms of high panegyric, of an extract from the Address of 
the Rev. Dr. Milnor, the Rector of St. George’s, in a news- 
paper, in which those who oppose. Bible Societies are styled 
“ blinded Christians,” and ranked with “ infidels,” had not 
rendered a similar publication of an extract from the Address 
a measure of self-defence.* 

What then are the facts? During the interval between 
1816, in which Bishop Hobart delivered an Address before a | 
Bible and Common Prayer Book Society, and 1822, you ac- 


* *I_ very strongly suspect, from some rumours which I have heard, the Churchman 
was prepared entirely to justify the application of this term, “ blinded Christians,” 
which Dr. Milnor, finding it obnoxious, deemed expedient to alter, in a subsequent 
publication of his Address, fo “ mistaken Christians.” 


16 

quit him of any publications on this subject.» At this. period; 
when not a whisper was heard from him, or from others, in 
opposition to Bible Societies—when the American Bible So- 
ciety was advancing on the tide of popularity with a rapidity 
and strength that would defy every effort to impede its pro 
gress—the President of this institution, in his public Address, 
deemed it proper to characterize opposition to the Bible So- 
cieties as “ opposition to dispersing the Scriptutes,” and ap- 
plied to the opponents of these institutions, indirectly indeed, 
but not the less forcibly, the admonition, that they were 
“fighting against God.’? And yet, because, months after- 
wards, in an official Address, Bishop Hobart attempted to 
explain the principles on which he acted in order to vindicate 
himself from these injurious imputations, you accuse him with 
having “ spontaneously, and without the slightest provocation, 
attacked Bible Societies in his charge to the Convention ;” 
and manifesting in his opposition, “ inveteracy, restlessness, 
and perseverance.”* —- 


5. Another misrepresentation which pervades your Letter 
_ is, that Bishop Hobart is opposed to the distribution of the 
Bible. 

It is impossible to reconcile with this charge, which, on the 
high authority of the President of the American Bible Society, 
you so often reiterate, with your acknowledgment of Bishop 
Hobart’s sincerity in disclaiming this imputation. The proof 
must be indeed overwhelming, that authorizes the repetition 
of an accusation which an individual, whose sincerity is not ) 
doubted, uniformly and decidedly disclaims. And -.what is 
your proof? Simply, that Bishop Hobart opposes Bible So- 
cieties. ‘ In endeavouring,” you observe, “ to destroy the 
only instruments whereby the distribution of the Oracles of 
Truth can be effected, you are labouring to prevent the dis- 
tribution of those Oracles themselves.’? t Most extraordi- 
nary! And did no means exist for the distribution of the 


* Letter, p. 28. + Letter, p. 47. 


17 


Bible until the British and Foreign Bible Society in 1804? 
Was Mark and perishing world destitute of the light of truth, 
until its effulgence was shed forth from this great luminary? 
Where was the “ Society for Promoting Christian Know- 
ledge?” which, as Bishop Mant, whom you quote with more 
than your usual courtesy, because you seem to think him not 
quite an “ ultra’? on this subject, observes, ‘“ is the most an- 
cient Bible Society in this kingdom, and was employed in the 
distribution of the Bible more than eighty years before any 
ether Bible Society existed among us.”* Think you, that 
if every Bible Society was to become extinct, the course of 
the Word of God would be arrested? Could not Societies 
for propagating the Gospel, Societies for promoting Christian 
knowledge, Bible and Common Prayer Book Societies, pro- 
vide, as they have done, and do, for the dispersion of the 
Oracles of Truth? And if these institutions did not exist, 
could not the different Christian denominations, in their 
ecclesiastical judicatories, make provision for the same ob- 
ject? 

It is an insult to common sense, to confine the distribution 
of the Bible to Bible Societies. This device, however, an- 
swers the purpose of exciting and nourishing those prejudices 
and passions which often awaken a zeal that an honest appeal 
to the understanding would never rouse ; and therefore, ab- 
surd as it is, it is used, and by others than yourself, of whom 
it is unworthy. 

You attempt to support this misrepresentation by the as- 
sertion, that the Bible and Common Prayer Book Societies do 
not distribute the Bible. I assert, on the contrary, that they 
do distribute it wherever it is needed, to the extent of their 
means. These means indeed are limited; because so large 
a portion of Episcopalians throw their bounty into Bible So- 
cieties, strictly so called. And the Bibles distributed by these 
institutions, supply frequently the wants of the people, and 
render expedient the appropriation of the funds of Bible and 


* Charge, 1817. 
Cc 


18 


Common Prayer Book Societies, in whole or in part, accord- 

ing to circumstances, to the distribution of Prayer Books, for 

which there is a greater demand. , 

_ The Auxiliary New-York Bible and Common Prayer Book 

Society, the active and tinostentatious zeal of the managers of 

which, no obstacles or discouragements have arrested or di- 

minished, is honoured with a large share of your opprobrium. 

I have a great aversion to those details in which you seem to 

be so much at home, or I could present a view of the good 

effected by this institution, notwithstanding the partial support 

which they received, that would rescue it from the contempt 
with which you speak of it. .I suspect the parish at Bedford 
has not been so scrupulous as to refuse benefactions of Prayer 

Books, even though they came from Bible and Common 

Prayer Book Societies. The managers of the Auxiliary New- 

York Bible and Common Prayer Book Society deemed it ex-. 
pedient, in their last report, to state their discouragements 

frankly and earnestly, and to acknowledge the declining state 

of the institution. ‘They had no inducement to conceal the 

truth; for they have not learned fanatically to estimate the 

goodness of a cause by its success or its popularity; nor have 

they the weakness to relinquish their conscientious opinions, 

because:they “are frowned upon: and they did earnestly 

plead with their brother Churchmen against the indulgence of 
that “‘excursive charity” and “erratic liberality,” which 

passes by its own household, to cast its gifts into the overflow- 

ing treasury of a foreign institution. There was a manliness, 

a frankness in this appeal, that could not fail to recommend 

it to honourable minds. And it had its effect. There were 

Churchmen supporters of the American Bible Society, and 

Christians of other names, who generously came forward on 

this appeal, and contributed to the funds of the institution. 

But with you the sin of supporting Bible and Common Prayer 

Book Societies covers a multitude of excellencies, and you 

contemptuously style them “ young gentlemen—reading lec- 

tures, &c.—-and having the modesty to ask clergymen belong- 

ing to Bible Societies, to distribute these censures upon them- 


19 
selves among their own parishioners.” Here is a charge 
against the managers of the New-York Auxiliary Bible and 
Common Prayer Book Society, vaguely indeed made, but on 
this account the more offensive, and { am furnished with the 
means of repelling it, and in justice it shall be done. 
The Committee of Arrangement of the Managers of the 
Auxiliary Bible Society had been in the practice for several 
_ years of sending a request to the Rectors of the different 
churches in the city, to give notice of an address and collec- 
tion for the benefit of the society; and with the view of saving 
them trouble, the notice was generally sent in a written 
form—and of late years, copies of the printed report were 
also furnished to be distributed in the pews. On the last oc- 
casion, the following note and notice were sent to the Rev. 
Dr. Milnor, the Rector of St. George’s Church, with copies 
of the printed report. The same notice and copies of the 
report were also sent to the Rectors of the other churches. 


“ New-York, Feb. 7, 1823. 

“The Committee of Arrangements, appointed by the 
* Auxiliary New-York Bible and Common Prayer Book So- 
ciety,’ having understood that it is intended to have service 
on Sunday evening next, at St. George’s Chapel, at which time 
the address for the benefit of the society is.to take place ; 
have felt it-their duty to express to Dr. Milnor their appre- 
hension, that the contemplated service will very materially in- 
terfere with the interest of the society, and they therefore 
hope that Dr. M. in compliance with the customary courtesy 
on such occasions, and from a regard to the depressed situa- 
tion of the funds of the society, will have his service omitted 
for that evening. The Commitice will be very happy to be 
informed that this measure has been adopted; and that the 
society will have an opportunity of making an undivided ap- 
peal to all Episcopalians ; and will receive with pleasure a 
line on the subject, addressed to their Secretary, at No. 120 
Pearl-street. ; 

“The Committee would further beg the fayour of having 


20 
the enclosed notice read from the desk, and the accompanying 
reports distributed in the pews of St. George’s on Sunday 
morning next. 
“In behalf of the Committee of denangerteonte; 
“ CHARLES KEELER, Secretary.” 


(Notice contained in the foregoing. ) 


“The annual sermon and collection for the benefit of the 
Auxiliary New-York Bible and Common Prayer Book Society, 
will take place in St. Paul’s Chapel, this evening, at seven 
o’clock. 

“ The serious attention of this congregation is solicited to 
the annual report, placed, by request of the society, in your 
pews; by which it will be seen that this valuable institution, 
which, in the few years since its formation, has-been enabled 
to distribute to poor and destitute Episcopalians more than 
18,000 Bibles and Prayer Books, now languishes for want of 
your support. 

“It remains to be seen, if a society so eminently calculated 
to advance the interests of true religion and our Church, shall 
be permitted to cease its benevolent operations, and to close 
the doors of its depository upon the claims of thousands of 
‘our brethren. . 

“ The contributions of Fiseensaill havea small, will 
be valuable ; and the hope is anxiously indulged, that the 
members of this congregation will this evening signify, by 
their attendance at St. Paul’s on this occasion, a laudable de- 
termination to assist in restoring this useful institution in some 
degree to its former flourishing condition.” 


From the Rector of St. George’s the following answer was | 
received, addressed to the Secretary of the Committee of 
Arrangements :— 


21 


14 Sir, ; 

“T have received your note of yesterday, requesting me to 
omit service in St. George’s ‘Chapel’ (Church) next Sunday 
evening, to read’a notice with a subjoined address, which you 
have been kind enough to prepare for me, and to have the re- 
ports of the Auxiliary and Prayer Book Society, by which it 
was accompanied, distributed in the pews of my church on 
Sunday morning next. 

. “With respect to closing the church on Sunday evening, | 
think it proper to inform the Committee of Arrangements, 
that the service alluded to is the regular appointment in St. 
George’s for every communion Sunday in the winter season, 
as it has subsisted from the commencement of my rectorship ; 
and that it will cause great inconvenience to the congregation, 
and probably no little displeasure, on this occasion to omit it. 
The families under my charge are so widely dispersed over 
the city, and many reside at so great a distance from the 
church, that it is not practicable for them, after being de- 
tained to a late hour by the unavoidable length of the morning 
service, to attend in the afternoon. My practice, therefore, 
except during the summer months, has been to postpone the 
afternoon service until evening: and you will permit me to 
say, that societies, in pursuing their objects, should have some 
respect to the previous appointment of particular churches, 
and that if they. do not, no rule of courtesy, in my opinion, re- 
quires a rector to shut up his church for their accommodation. 
I mention this, bécause, in a similar way, the services of my 
church have been heretofore interfered with, and if no regard 
is had in their arrangements to the convenience of myself and 
congregation, I shall hereafter consider myself by no means 
bound to comply with a request such as you have now made, 
On the present occasion, as a gentleman most deservedly po- 
pular was to preach in St. George’s, and as the attractions of 
his eloquence would, no doubt, cause a very considerable di- 
minution of your assemblage in St. Paul’s, I reluctantly con- 
sent to the very inconvenient measure you propose. 
** With respect to the notice of the sermon and collection 


22 


in St. Paul’s, it shall be given; but I cannot read the subjoined 
address, and am greatly astonished that such a request aaa 
have been made. 

‘“¢ | am equally surprised that the Committee of Arrange- 
ments, with the knowledge they possess of my views in rela- 
tion to the propriety of Episcopalians uniting with their fellow 
Christians in Bible Societies, should require of me to distribute 
in the pews of my churcha report, which casts injurious im- 
putations on the very numerous body of Episcopalians who 
concur in the sentiment which I have maintained and acted 
upon for the last fifteen years, and for a part of that time in 
immediate connexion with the venerable Bishop of Pennsyl« 
vania. 

‘“‘ Independently of my objection to have any thing Lindale 
before the congregation on a communion Sunday, calculated 
to divert their attention from the solemn duties before them, 
I cannot consistently, and conscientiously, become the so- 
ciety’s agent, in any form, in the circulation of a report, which, 
in my estimation, does not assign the true causes of the pre- 
sent depressed state of the Auxiliary Bible and Prayer Book 
Society, and indulges in remarks that cannot but prove offen- 
sive to the feelings of a large portion of their fellow-mem- 
bers of the Episcopal Church, and espetially of those under 
my pastoral charge. 

“‘ The package of reports is therefore returned. 

“ ] am, very respectfully, 
‘* Your obedient servant, 
“ JAMES MILNOR.” 
« St. George’s Parsonage, Feb. 8, 1923,” 


To the above the managers replied as follows :— 


“ New-York, Feb. 17, 1823. 
“ ReEveREND Sir, 
‘“‘ The Board of Managers of the Auxiliary New-York Bi- 
ble and Common Prayer Book Society, having at a late meet- 
ing received from their Committee of Arrangements your 


23 
letter to their Secretary of the 8th inst. and feeling no smali 
degree of surprise and regret at the harsh and criminating 
tone in which it is dictated, have directed me to address you 
on the subject. 

“ Upon a recurrence to the note addressed to you by the 
Committee, we are really at a loss to perceive, éither in the 
matter or the manner of the requests contained in it, any 
cause fur the warmth it appears to have elicited. ‘The use of 
the word ‘Chapel’ was evidently an inadvertence, - arising 
from the former designation of St. George’s, and was certainly 
not intended to. derogate from your dignity as the rector of 
that church; and the address annexed to the notice, (which 
you say we were so kind as to prepare for you,) was a mere 
circular sent. without distinction to all the Episcopal churches 
in the city, and was submitted as customary, by the Commit- 
tee, from their knowledge of the state of the society. . The 
Bishop, as Rector of Trinity Church, has never deemed a: re- 
quest to read notices sent to him relative to collections for pious 
objects connected with our Church, as either improper or dis- 
respectful ; and it did not occur to our Committee, that what 
was never considered by our Diocesan as offensive to his dig- 
nity, would be esteemed so by one of his presbyters. 

«< But least of all could our Committee have intended any 
interference with your arrangements in the services of your 
‘church. When the appointment was made by us, and for ten 
days after, we were not aware of your intention to have ser- 
vice’on the evening selected by us; and we would certainly 
rather have put ourselves to any expense or inconvenience, 
than have excited one angry or uncharitable emotion. | But, 
presuming on your supposed friendship to a society of which 
you have been for several years a member, and having under- 
stood that ‘a gentleman most deservedly popular was to 
preach in St. George’s,’ they took the liberty, which would 
not otherwise have been used, to make the request so reluct- 
antly, and, we regret to add, so ungraciously granted. 

“It would doubtless be construed into affectation were we 
to profess our ignorance of the course pursued by you in re- 


24 


lation to associations out of our Church; but we certainly 

could not be supposed therefore to know that you were hos- 

tile to our own institutions, formed for the purpose of spread- 

ing the Gospel in aecordance with the principles of our own 
communion. Nor could we be supposed to infer, that an at-_ 
tempt on our part to impress on our fellow Episcopalians the 

duty of preventing a valuable and pious institution, exclu- 
sively under the management. of our own primitive Church, 

from languishing, and perhaps becoming extinct, through the 

want of their pecuniary assistance, would be deemed excep- 

tionable by one of its ministers; nor that he would withhold 

from an intelligent congregation the means of judging for 
themselves upon the propriety of rendering it their support. 

“© We certainly did not suppose that the members of any 
Episcopal congregation would be occupied during service 
with the perusal of our printed report. Our design in wishing . 
it t6 be placed in the pews was, that thus, in the readiest way, 
Episcopalians generally might be supplied with it for perusal 
at home. In this case, as in that of the circular notice, the 
plan of the Committee was a general one, and a departure 
from it in the case of any one particular church, whilst there 
seemed no necessity to justify it, would have been thought 
perhaps, much more exceptionable than a uniform compliance 
with it. 

* We are wholly at a loss to perceive in what manner the 
report ‘ casts injusious imputations’ on any body of Episcopa- - 
lians, and we should regret most deeply that the tenor of our 
remarks should prove offensive to the tips: of any member 
of the Episcopal Church. . 

“It indeed laments’ that Fpiecopatailé should neglect the | 
institutions of their.own Church, formed for the propagation 
of the Gospel, according to the apostolic faith we venerate ; 
but it does not impeach or censure, as you suppose, the insti- 
tutions, uniting various denominations of Christians, with 
which you have thought proper to connect yourself, — 

“ As respects the truth of the report, which you have so 
gratuitously impeached, we can only assert the correctness of 


25 


eur intentions, and our own knowledge of the operations and 
_ state of the society; and we believe the evidence we have 
afforded the public of our sincerity, and their knowledge of 
the individuals who compese our board, will sufficiently 
avouch its veracity. 

“* We revere, as highly as any other persons, the venerable 
Bishop of Pennsylvania, and we think that in the course we 
are pursuing, we act fully in accordance with the spirit of hus 
admonitions in his late excellent address, dissuading from all 
admixture with others, unfavourable to the apostolic: prin- 
ciples of our ewn Church. 

“We beg leave to remind you that our society is auxiliary 
to one which undertook the distribution of the Bible before 
any other society in this city; and that both the principal and 
the auxiliary were operating with the unanimous patronage of 
our Church, and without opposition from any quarter, before 
your connexion with this diocess. Should these institutions 
be made so unpopular as no longer to enjoy the united sup- 
port of all Episcopalians, we shall most deeply lament the 
circumstance ; but it will not change our opinion of the cor- 
rectness of the principles on which they are founded, nor of 
the policy of the course which they pursue, until we are will- 
ing to allow that the popularity of any system is the criterion 
of its merit, or apparent success the evidence of divine favour. 

‘J am, very respectfully, 
*¢ Reverend Sir, 
‘¢ Your most obedient servant, 
“ CHARLES W. SANDFORD, 
“ Corresponding Secretary, &c.” 
“ The Rev. James Mixnor, D. D. 
“ St. George’s Parsonage.” 


Our readers can now judge of the heinousness of the of- 
fence which the Managers of the Auxiliary New-York Bible 
and Common Prayer Book Society committed in the re- 
quests which they made of the Rectors of Churches in New- 
York who are connected with Bible Societies. 

D 


26 

6. You misrepresent Bishop Hobart, by imputing to him 
a disparagement of the sacred volume; a design to supersede it 
bya “substitute ;”? and an attempt, by indirect means, to “pull 
it out of the people’s hands.”” The very civil terms in which 
this charge is brought, shall be considered under another 
head. 

Your proof should have been very decisive before you 
ventured to impute to Bishop Hobart a conduct so utterly 
at variance with all his obligations as a Christian, a Clergy- 
man, and a Bishop. And what is your proof? Merely 
that he asserted the utility of the distribution of the Li- 
turgy; a book in which are concentered the faith, the piety, 
and the wisdom of the Church from the earliest ages, in con- 
nexion with the Bible, as the best commentary on its con- 
tents, and the digest of its truths most entitled to confidence 
and respect. And do you mean, as a Churchman, to deny 
this commendation of the Liturgy? Do you design to as- 
sert, that in the interpretation of the Bible, no human aid is 
useful or necessary; and in your horror of every thing 
connected with the Church of Rome, to rush from the infalli- 
bility of general councils to the more absurd extreme of the 
infallibility of the judgment of every private Christian, how- 
ever ignorant or illiterate. TheJeromes and the Chrysostoms 
of ancient times ; and the Vitringas, and the Patricks, and the 
Lowths, and the Hammonds, and the Whitbys, and the Hornes, 
and the Horsleys, of modern days, might have been spared the 
necessity of their massy volumes, explaining and illustrating 
the sacred text, could they have foreseen that there would 
have risen up “a Churchman of the Diocese of New-York,” 
who would be competent, and who would claim the same 
competency for all, however “ illiterate,”’ to ascertain with- 
out extraneous aid the meaning of that book, on which they 
found it necessary to bestow not only the force of their own 
intellect, learning, and labour; but the intellect, the learning, 
and the labour of the ages that had preceded them. 

You quote the following passage from Bishop Hobart’s Pas- 
toral Letter, published in 1815, in proof of your injurious im- 


27 


putations:—“ In distributing the Book of Common Prayer, 
then, we circulate the most interesting and valuable passages 
of Scripture, lucidly and appositely arranged, so as to present 
not a perverted or imperfect view of divine truth, but, in sim- 
plicity and force, the fundamental principles and privileges of 
the great charter of our salvation, and the character and be- 
nign offices of its Divine Author. It is not hazarding too much 
to assert, that he who will read the portions of sacred writ 
contained in the Book of Common Prayer, and in the offices 
usually connected with it, will become acquainted with every 
part of Scripture, arranged in perspicuous and impressive or- 
der, which can be necessary to form his faith, to regulate his 
obedience, to inspire his hopes, and to guide his devotions. 
We distribute, then, the Holy Scriptures in the manner best 
calculated to diffuse a knowledge of their sacred contents, 
when we distribute the Book of Common Prayer.” 

I really have not the patience nor the time to follow you 
through the minute perversions which nought but an impla- 
cable determination to hold Bishop Hobart up to contempt and 
odium could have carried even you, delighting as you do in 
this drudgery, and by which you seek to torture this innecent 
passage into a sense which would leave to him the alternative 
of either stupidity or knavery—of either not knowing the 
meaning of his own expressions, or of the deliberate wicked- 
ness of asserting that “ the Bible presents a pervértéd or im- 
perfect view of divine truth.”* You do not affect indeed to 
believe that the sense which you put upon this passage is 
‘€ the one in which Bishop Hobart used it ;”? and yet you are 
“ confident it is the only one which it will rationally bear.”’t 
You would compel him to take his choice—he is a stupid 
man, ora bad man. Much ingenuity, however, will not be 
necessary to rescue him from this dilemma. ; 

The Book of Common Prayer contains the whole book of 
‘Psalms, which Bishop Horne, in his Preface to his Commen- 
tary, styles ‘an epitome of the Bible.” And were this ex- 


* Letter, p. 16. + Letter, p. 18. 


28 


alted prelate, exalted both in learning, in imagination, in feel- 
ing, in taste, and in piety, now living, and to fall under the 
wrath of this ‘* Churchman of the diocese of New-York,” we 
should soon hear him accused of disparaging the rest of the 
sacred volume, because he called the Psalms an epitome of 
its contents. But I will let Bishop Hobart speak for himself. 
“‘ We present,” says he, in the Pastoral Letter from which 
you quote, “the Bible at darge,” (and yet Bishop Hobart, 
you say, would supersede or mutilate the Bible!) “ and with 
the Bible, in the Book of Common Prayer, an abstract of it, 
comprising, in the words of inspiration, a succinct but com- 
plete summary of the plan of redemption; of the character, 
the history, and the offices of its Divine Author; of its prin- 
ciples, its duties, and its hopes. Many of these the Psalter 
displays in the affecting strains of penitence, supplication, 
and praise. They are fully exhibited in the Epistles and 
Gospels contained in the Book of Common Prayer. These, 
while they lead us from the contemplation of the first advent 
of the Son of God, in great humility, contrasted with his se- 
cond advent, in great glory, through the successive stages of 
his life, his passion, his crucifixion, and his resurrection, to 
the final completion of his work, by his ascension, as our In- 
tercessor and Ruler, to the right hand of the Most High, dis- 
play also his divine power in the gifts and graces of the Holy 
Comforter, the incomprehensible glory of the eternal Trinity, 
and all the principles, duties, and privileges of that great sal- 
vation which Jesus Christ proclaimed. 

‘‘ Many important passages of Scripture, establishaile faith, or 
enforcing obedience, are scattered through the various offices 
in the Book of Common Prayer. The authority, the nature, 
and the privileges of the sacrament of Baptism are set forth 
in Scripture language, in the forms of administering that holy 
sacrament. And while the order for the Holy Communion 
proclaims the moral law in the words of God himself, deliver- 
ed on the mount of Sinai, it addresses, from the hill of Zion, 
the penitent transgressor of that law, in the soothing language 
of the Saviour—‘ God so loved the world as to give his only 


29 


begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not pe- 
rish, but should have everlasting life.’ ”’ 

Do you know, and do you love, as a Churchman ought to 
do, the Liturgy of his Church, and do you doubt the truth of . 
the above statement? Bishop Hobart does not assert that 
the other parts of Scripture, besides those which are contained 
in the Prayer Book, though not, strictly speaking, necessary to 
form our faith, are not useful for this purpose. What may be 
highly useful in the Sacred Volume, may not be, strictly 
speaking, necessary. The distinction is obvious: for we 
should impeach the veracity of God, by asserting that more 
than one inspired declaration was necessary to fix our faith in 
any doctrine which he revealed. Other passages of Scripture 
are useful in confirming this faith, and we should be grateful 
to our Almighty Maker for the full reveiation which he makes 
of his will ; but, in a strict sense, only one inspired declaration 
of him who is immutable truth, can be necessary to command 
full credence to any doctrine or duty which he reveals or 
enjoins. 

You labour most assiduously to convict Bishop Hobart of 
an impious disparagement of the Bible, because he asserted, 
that ‘he who will read the portions of it in the Book of: 
Common Prayer, and in the offices usually connected with 
it,”” comprising the whole book -of Psalms, and the most in- 
teresting and valuable passages of the sacred volume, “ will 
become acquainted with every part of Scripture, arranged in 
perspicuous and impressive order, which can be necessary 
to form his faith, to regulate his obedience, to inspire his 
hopes, and to guide his devotions.” This was a great offence 
in Bishop Hobart. Let us hear the judicious Hooker, whom 
you attempt to-enlist in your cause. “ What is there necessary 
for man to know,” (to know, for the regulation of his faith and 
moral conduct,) ‘ which the Psalms’ (observe, he does not 
mention the other parts of Scripture contained in the Prayer 
Book) “are not able to teach?” And he goes on with his 
usual force and eloquence—“ They are to beginners an easy 
and familiar introduction, a mighty augmentation of all virtue 


30 


and knowledge in such as are entered before, a strong confir- 
mation to the most perfect amongst others. Heroical magna- 
nimity, exquisile justice, grave moderation, exact wisdom, 
repentance unfeigned, unwearied patience, the mysteries of 
God, the sufferings of Christ, the terrors of wrath, the com- 
forts of grace, the works of Providence over this world, and 
the promised joys of that world which is to come, all good 
necessarily to be either known, or done, or had, this one 
celestial fountain yieldeth. Let there be any grief or disease 
incident unto the soul of man, any wound or sickness named, 
for which there is not in this treasure-house a present comfort- 
able remedy at all times ready to be found.”’* 

Alas! that this exalted man, when he was inditing this 
sublime commendation of the Psalms, as containing every 
thing relative to faith, and duty, and consolation, which it was 
‘¢mecessary for man to know,” should not have foreseen that “a 
Churchman of the diocese of New-York,” in the keenness of 
his intellectual vision, would discover that he (Hooker) either 
did not understand his own words, or had impiously dispa- 
raged the rest of the sacred volume—* told,” (I quote your 
language,) “like the Catholics, the poor and illiterate, that the 
command of the Redeemer, ‘ search the Scriptures,’ did not 
apply to them; that he (Hooker) “ had kindly provided for 
their use, a little Bible,” (the little book of Psalms,) ** which, 
although not the twentieth part of the size of the”? rest of the 
Bible, “ nevertheless contained all that was necessary to form 
their faith, regulate their obedience, inspire their hopes, and 
guide their devotions.”» Bishop Hobart need not be alarmed. 
If he must take the alternative of stupid or wicked—so must 
Bishop Horne—so must the judicious Hooker. In such com- 
pany I think he is safe. I cannot refrain, however, from in- 
serting another passage from the very Pastoral Letter which 
you quote as evidence of his disparaging the Bible, and pre- 
ferring to it the Book ef Common Prayer. “ The Bible alone 
contains that knowledge which is able to make us wise unto 


© Hooker, Eccl. Pol. book v. sec. 37. 


3h 


salvation—it reveals that mercy which extends pardon to the 
guilty—it confers that grace which is the source of holinéss 
and virtue—and it confirms all the deductions of reason, and 
all the desires of nature concerning the state beyond the 
grave, by ensuring to us, on the promise of God himself, 
through his Son, our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, the hope 
of everlasting bliss. The sacred volume thus provides for 
‘ the life which is to come.’ It secures, also, the individual 
and the general happiness of man in the life ‘ which now is;? 
controlling by its divine influence those passions which are 
the foes of man’s peace ; adorning him with al! those virtues 
which render his social relations beneficial and interesting, 
and a source of enjoyment to him ; and, both in its injunctions 
and its sanctions, furnishing the civil government with means 
of commanding obedience, which no human authority, and no 
temporal sanctions can supply. In the distribution of the 
Bible, then, the Christian is engaged in promoting the eternal 
salvation of his fellow men; and the patriot and philanthropist, 
in advancing and securing the best interests of his country 
and the world. The members of the Protestant Episcopal 
Church, who constituted the Bible and Common Prayer Book 
Society, were deeply impressed with the duty, which seemed 
to call forth all the energies of the Christian world, of dif- 
fusing the knowledge of God’s revealed Will, by the gratuitous 
distribution of the sacred volume which contains it. They 
were, however, naturally led, at the same time, to consider, 
that the Book of Common Prayer contains the purest exhibi- 
tion of that evangelical truth which the Bible reveals, and the 
most correct and interesting provisions for that divine worship 
which the Bible enjoins. ‘They therefore resolved to devote 
their exertions to the distribution of this invaluable summary 
of divine truth, and formulary of devotion, in conjunction 
with that sacred volume whose contents it faithfully exhibits, 
and whose spirit it has imbibed.’’* 

~ And the very fitness of the Book of Common Prayer, as a 


* Pastoral Letter of Bishop Hobart, p. 4. 


32 


companion, not as a “ substitute,” according to your misrepre- 
sentation of Bishop Hobart’s opinions, arises (he states) from 
the fact, “ that the evangelical truths of Scripture are set 
forth in the Common Prayer Book with clearness, with one 
with interest, and with force. 

“] speak now of those truths” (he observes) ceqrhich are con- 
sidered fundamental—the corruption and guilt of man—the di-, 
vinity, the atonement, and the intercession of Jesus Christ— 
and salvation through a lively faith in him, and through the 
sanctifying power of the Holy Ghost. To quote all the passages 
which set forth these doctrines, would be to transcribe the Li- 
turgy. They constitute the spirit that gives life to every page, 
that glows in every expression of this inimitable volume ;.they 
are set forth, not in a form addressed merely to the understand- 
ing, but in that fervent language of devotion which reaches 
and sways the heart. Its opponents yield to it the praise of 
evangelical correctness. They think they bring the most 
decisive evidence of the want of evangelical fidelity in the 
preaching of the Ministers of the Church, when they assert 
that it contradicts the Articles and Liturgy ; that the pulpit is 
at variance with the desk. It is a singular glory of our Liturgy, 
that it is the only formulary which ald Protestants acknow- 
ledge as a correct exhibition of evangelical doctrine. What 
greater service, then, can we render to a benighted and ruin- 
ed world, than to circulate, in conjunction with the Bible, this 
admirable summary of its renovating truths ? What more pro- 
per companion for the sacred volume, in the divine labour of 
evangelizing the world, than that book which truly sets forth, 
in the simple and affecting language of devotion, Jesus Christ, 
and him crucified—Jesus Christ, in all his offices, as the only 
Saviour of sinners? .And what book can be better calculated 
to co-operate with the original record of God’s will, in re- 
storing and diffusing the glorious truths of the Rerormation, 
than one, which, to use the language of a learned divine,” is 
‘almost universally esteemed by the devout and pious of 


* Dr. Adam Clarke. 


33. 


évery denomination, and which is the greatest effort of the 
Reformation next to the translation of the Scriptures into the 
English language—a work which all who are acquainted with 
it deem superior to every thing of the kind produced either 
by ancient or modern times—and several of the prayers and 
services which were in use from the first ages of Chris- 
tianity, and many of the best of them before the name of Pope 
or popery was known in the earth,” 


6. In alliance with the above MISREPRESENTATION is an- 
“other, pervading all your remarks on this point—that Bishop 
Hobart, in advocating the distribution of the Book of Com- 
mon Prayer, in conjunction with the Bible, as the best com- 
mentary on its sacred contents, is guilty of the Roman Catho- 
lic error of impugning the sufficiency of the Scriptures as a 
rule of faith. 

One single remark dissipates all your sophistry on this 
point. Human law is a sufficient rule of conduct, in all the 
cases within its jurisdiction. And yet, in the interpretation of 
this law, we would have recourse to the opinions and deci- 
sions of the learned and authorized interpreters of law. The 
Bible, the divine law, is a sufficient rule of faith; yet, in the 
interpretation of the Bible, it is expedient that we avail our- 
selves of the comments of the learned and authorized ex- 
pounders of it, and test the truth of our interpretations by the 
sense, a3 far as can be ascertained, of the universal Church 
in the earliest ages. In this view, the Book of Common 
Prayer, containing the Creeds of the universal Church, and 
the sense of the reformers of the Church of England, and of 
subsequent divines eminent for learning and piety as to the 
matters contained in the Bible, is a suitable companion for it, 
being “‘ a digest of the truths contained in the Sacred Oracles ; 
- and an ancient, impressive, affecting, and faithful summary of 
evangelical doctrine.’’* 

So far from symbolizing with the Church of Rome as to this 


* Pastoral Letter of Bishop Hobart, 1815, p. 19. 


34 


mode of interpreting the Bible, it was acted upon in the early 
part of the fourth century, long before the Christian Church 
became contaminated with the errors of popery. The famous 
Council of Nice determined the sense of Scripture on the 
fundamental point of the divinity of Christ, not merely by 
the individual opinions of its members as to the meaning 
of Scripture, but by the sense of the Church as received 
from the beginning—semper, ubique, ab omnibus—always, 
every where, by all. And this is the principle which was 
acted on by the reformers. The Bible is a sufficient rule of 
faith: human authority, the sense of the universal Church, is 
useful in determining the meaning of the Bible. This is sound 
Protestant doctrme. But the Roman Catholics maintain— 
that the Bible is not a sufficient rule of faith—that it does not 
contain all things necessary to salvation—that tradition, inde- 
pendent of Scripiure, is also a rule of faith, a directory as to 
the essentials of salvation—and that not the judgment of the 
Church universal of the great body of Christians, in all places 
and at all times, is a sure interpretation of Scripture, but that 
every general council of the Church, sanctioned by the Pope, 
is infallible in all its decrees concerning matters of doctrine. 
The difference is apparent between this and the sound 
Protestant doctrine as advocated by Bishop Hobart. Ac- 
cording to his doctrine, we should avail ourselves of human 
authority; and particularly of the sense of the universal 
Church, which he thinks the Book of Common Prayer best 
sets forth, in expounding Scripture, which, he maintains, is 2 
sufficient rule of faith. Whereas the Church of Rome thinks 
the Scripture an insufficient rule of faith, and brings in tradi- 
tion, not to interpret the meaning of Scripture merely, but t6 
constitute another rule of faith; and also maintains the infal- 
libility of the decrees of her councils. Bishop Hobart advo- 
eates the distribution of the Book of Common Prayer in con- 
junction with the Bible, as the best exhibition of the sense of 
the universal Church, and of eminent and pious divines, as to 
the doctrines contained in Scripture. 

This whole subject of the difference between Protestants 
and Roman Catholics as to Scripture being a sufficient rule of 


35 


faith, is discussed with great ability by Bishop Marsh, in 
distinct treatise. In its application to the present subject, he 
has very concisely, but clearly, exhibited the principle for 
which Bishop Hobart contends, in the following extract from 
his primary Charge as Bishop of Landaff, in 1817: and I 
quote Bishop Marsh on account of his eminent character, and 
particularly in reference to yourself, because he seems less 
obnoxieus to you than the other opponents of Bible So- 
cieties. is 

« The Bible is the sole authority on which Protestants forma 
4t their articles of faith; whereas the members of the Church 
¢ of Rome found their articles of faith on the jeint authority 
“ of Scripture and tradition. While the Bible and tradition, 
‘‘ therefore, are the religion of the Papist, the Bible, and the 
«¢ Bible only, is the religion of the Protestant. But when this 
“‘ maxim, which is true with respect to the authority of the 
“ Bible, is applied, as it has been, to the distribution of the 
« Bible, the maxim is totally false. ‘Tkeugh the Prayer Book 
“ has no authority but what it derives from the Bible, Church- 
‘¢ men must attend to its distribution with the Bible. Take 
« away the Prayer Book, and though we remain Christians, 
‘we cease te be Churchmen. Christians of every denomi- 
‘¢ nation appeal to the Bible in support of their faith and wor- 
« ship, however diversified that faith and worship may be. 
* Our form of faith and worship ‘is that which is prescribed 
“in the Prayer Book; and as we have every reason to be- 
“‘ lieve, that the faith and worship there prescribed, is conso- 
“ nant with the tenets of the Bible, we must consistently, as 
* good Churchmen, as good Protestants, (whatever has been 
“ said to the contrary,) regard the Prayer Book as a proper 
«* companion for the Bible.””* 

No Protestant denies, ‘‘ that the Bible, if rightly used, will 
‘¢ become, in the peor man’s hand, a most valuable instrument 
« of instruction ;” or that he is able, with an honest and good 
intention, to draw from it all the truths necessary to his sal- 


* Bishop Marsh’s Charge, 1817, p. 35, 36. 


36 


vation. But supposing in the first case, that he does not 
rightly use the Bible, and, through the fallibility of his judg- 
ment, deduces from it erroneous tenets, (and how many 
such cases occur?) would it not have been well if he 
could have had some digest of the truths of the Bible, that 
would have guarded him from error? And such a digest 
is the Book of Common Prayer, containing the Creeds 
of the Universal Church, and a perspicuous statement of 
Christian doctrine. Supposing, in the other case, that after 
deducing from the Bible a correct system of divine truths, 
he is assailed by men more learned and ingenious than 
himself, with difficulties and objections which he is unable to 
answer, would it not be satisfactory for him to be able to 
reply? My own judgment, | know, is fallible; and you pre- 
sent difficulties and objections to the faith which I have de- 
duced from the Bible, which I am unable to answer. But 
here is a Common Prayer Book, in which I find the Apostles’ 
and the Nicene Creed, which have been received by the great 
body of Christians from the early ages of the Church, and also 
an exhibition in the prayers, the catechism, the offices, and 
the articles, &c. of the truths of the Gospel. The interpre- 
tation which I give to the Bible is thus sanctioned by the 
great body of Christians from the beginning, and by the re- 
formers and learned divines of that Church, which is consider- 
ed as the bulwark of the Protestant faith ; and I should act 
most unreasonably if I should receive any private interpreta- 
tion of the Bible in preference to an exposition of it contain- 
ed in a book thus sanctioned; or doubt truths which the great 
body of Christians from the beginning have cherished as the 
truths of salvation, and which I find advance my own holiness 
and consolation.—The Christian who pursues this course 
would, I think, be secure fromerror. Here, then, is the use 
of such an authorized digest of the truths of the Bible as the 
Common Prayer Book presents; and hence arises the pro- 
priety of making it a companion, whenever practicable, to the 
Bible. Where Common Prayer Books are not wanted, or will 
not be read, it would be worse than absurd to refuse to give 
the Bible. 


37 


In your declamation as to Bishop Hobart’s disparagement ' 
of the Scriptures, because he maintains the utility of the Li- 
turgy as the best comment upon them, you quote Hooker, 
“whose zeal for the Church,” you say, “was accompanied 
‘¢ with a thorough knowledge of her spirit and doctrines,” as 
maintaining that “ the power of the Word of God, even with- 
“out the help of interpreters in God’s Church, worketh 
“‘ mightily not only to their confirmation alone which are al- 
“ready converted, but also to their conversion which are 
“not.” “ Scripture is not so hard, but that the only reading 
“ thereof may give life to willing hearers.”? The design of 
Hooker was to refute those who exalted sermons as a mean 
of faith, and decried the reading of the Scriptures in the 
Churches; and by the interpreters in God’s Church, he means 
the Preachers delivering their sermons. It never entered 
into his mind to decry, as you do, an authorized interpretation 
of God’s Word. I presume Bishop Hobart would have no 
difficulty in assenting to the spirit of the remarks of Hooker, 
as to the efficacy of the Bible alone. But does it follow, 
that because “the only reading thereof may give life to 
*‘ willing hearers,”? and often does, that therefore it always 
will—and that a system, which separates the Bible from the 
Prayer Book, the best commentary upon it, is the best sys- 
tem? ‘Things necessary to all men’s saivation are,” as 
Hooker asserts, “ plain and easy to be understood.” But 
supposing, concerning these “ plain and easy things,”’ doubts 
are raised, by ingenious and artful men, (and there is no funda- 
mental doctrine of Scripture, concerning which doubts have 
not been raised,) so that the mind of even the honest inquirer 
after truth is perplexed and agitated? What then? Where 
is he to find a haven, amidst the sea of uncertainty and per- 
plexity on which he is tost? Not in the decisions of a parti- 
cular Church, as for instance the Church of Rome ; but in the 
sense of Scripture maintained by the Church universal, 
(Catholic); which sense is set forth in the Apostles’ and Nicene 
Creeds, handed down from the earliest ages, and in the prayers 
and offices, developing Christian doctrine, contained in the 


38 


Book of Common Prayer, and many of which have an origin 
equally ancient. This is that sober regard to authority in de- 
finitively settling the meaning of Scripture, which is the dic- 
tate of common sense. 

Does Hooker mean to decry, as you insinuate, all rem to 
commentaries on human authority, in determining the meaning 
of the word God? He was too sober, too “judicious” for 
this extravagant and fanatical opinion. “Let us hear his lan- 
guage :—“ If the natural strength of man’s wit may by experi- 
“ ence and study attain unto such ripeness in the knowledge 
“of things human, that men in this respect may presume to 
“ build somewhat upon their judgment, what reason have we 
“ to think but that even in matters divine, the like wits fur- 
“ nished with necessary helps, exercised in Scripture with like 
* diligence, and assisted with the grace of Almighty God, may 
““ srowunto so much perfection of knowledge, that men should 
‘“ have just cause, when any thing pertinent-unto faith and re- 
“ ligion is doubted of, the more willingly to incline their minds 
“ towards that which the sentence of so grave, wise, and learned 
“ in that faculty shall judge most sound?—Whom God hath 
“ endued with principal gifts to aspire unto knowledge by ; 
‘“‘ whose exercises, labours, and divine studies he hath so 
“blest, that the world for their great and rare skill that way 
‘‘ hath them in singular admiration ; may we reject even their 
“ judgment likewise, as being utterly of no moment ? For mine 
‘© own part, I dare not so lightly esteem of the Church, and of 
“ the principal pillars therein.—If no man, be he never so well 
“learned, have after the Apostles any authority to publish 
“ new doctrine as from heaven, and to require the world’s as- 
*¢ sent as unto truth received by prophetical revelation; doth 
“this prejudice the credit of learned men’s judgments in 
“ opening that truth, which by being conversant in the Apos- 
“ tles’ writings, they have themselves from thence learned ?”* 

As an antidote to your disparagement of human authority, 
and your bold claims for the competency of even “ the poor 


* Hooker, Eccl. Pol. book ii. sec, 7. 


39 


and illiterate of our congregations,” in the interpretation of 
Scripture, let me quote the following paragraph from Hooker. 
Itis really worthy of your very particular consideration. “ It 
‘‘ doth not as yet appear that an argument of authority of man 
‘¢ affirmatively is in matters divine nothing worth. Which opin- 
‘¢ ion being once inserted into the minds of the vulgar sort, what 
it may grow unto God knoweth. Thus much we see, it hath 
“ already made thousands so headstrong, even in gross and 
‘€ palpable errors, that a man whose capacity will scarce serve 
‘ him to utter five words in sensible manner, blusheth not in 
“ any doubt concerning matter of Scripture to think his own 
" bare Yea, as good as the Nay of all the wise, grave, and 
‘learned judgments that are in the whole world: which inso- 
“ lency must be repressed, or it will be the very bane of Chris- 
tian religion.”’* 


7. You misrepREsENT Bishop Hobart on the subject of 
uniting the Church of God with the Word of God, in all ef- 
forts for propagating Christianity. 

No candid person, who is acquainted with what Bishop Ho- 
bart has published on this point, can be at a loss to ascertain 
his sentiments. All institutions, he maintains, for propagat- 
ing the Gospel, and for distributing the Bible, should be con- 
ducted under the authority of the Church ; and should never, 
in the principle of their organization, separate the Word of God 
from the Church of God—the sacred volume from the mini- 
stry, the ordinances and the worship which the Word of God 
enjoins as of divine institution, and the instruments of the pro- 
pagation and preservation of Gospel truth. Now, Bible So- 
cieties, as to the principle on which they are founded, sepa- 
rate the Word of God from the Church of God—they do not 
act under the authority of the Church of God, let that Church 
be what it may—they do not recognise any system of doc- 
trine, any ministry, any ordinances or mode of worship, all of - 
which are necessary to constitute a Church of God—nor does 


* Hooker, Eccl, Pol. book ii. sec, 7. 


40 


their organization admit of any reference to these objects. 
Bishop Hobart maintains that Episcopalians, believing that the 
Episcopal Church, holding the doctrine, ministry, ordinances, 
and worship, declared and established by Christ and his Apos- 
tles, is a true and pure Church of God, should think it their 
duty to act under the authority of this Church, and to make 
its propagation the object of all their exertions ; because they 
thus, in the apostolic mode, propagate the Gospel, But you, by 
artfuliy putting in opposition (strange conduct in a Church- 
mai) the advancement of the Episcopal Church and the pro- 
pagation of the Gospel, make Bishop Hobart, as the exclusive 
advocate of the former, indifferent, if not opposed to the lat- 
ter. This is the effect of many statements and representa- 
tions scattered through your pamphlet. 
Bishop Hobart had observed, that “in translating and pub- 
“ lishing the Liturgy in conjunction with the Bible, and dis- 
“ tributing them throughout the world, we follow the Scrip- 
“ tural plan of evangelizing it—we present God’s Word, and 
*© God’s Church.”? And on this you very delicately remark : 
“Surely, Sir, we had a right to expect from the Professor of 
“ Pastoral Theology, in the Theological Seminary of the 
“ Protestant Episcopal Church, language less vague and un- 
“ intelligible than this. Are the students in your seminary to 
* be taught, that the Liturgy constitutes the Church of God?””* 
Sir, you grossly misrepresent Bishop Hobart, in order to 
have an opportunity of holding him up to the contempt of the 
students of theology. When and where did he say, that the 
“ Liturgy constitutes the Church ?”? His declaration is, that, 
in distributing the Liturgy, ‘ we present the Church”—we 
set forth the Church in her doctrines, her ministry, her ordi- 
-nances, and her worship. This is too plain to require proof. 
The doctrines of the Church pervade the Liturgy: the mini- 
stry of the Church, in the orders of Bishops, Priests, and Dea- 
_cons, appear in every part of it; and, in the office of ordi- 
nation, are declared to “ have been from the Apostles’ times,” 


* Letter, p. 55. 


; 4l 


* to have been instituted by God’s Providence and Holy Spi- 
*¢ vit :?? the ordinances, baptism, confirmation, and the Lord’s 
supper, are exhibited in their nature, their effects, and the 
qualifications for them, with great clearness, force, and pa- 
thos—and it establishes an inimitable form for daily morning 
and evening prayer. This is the sentiment of Bishop Hobart. 
And could it occur to him, and to the managers of the Bible 
and Common Prayer Book Societies, who in their Reports 
express the same sentiment, that one of their brethren, “a 
«“ Churchman of the diocese of New-York,’ would so misre- 
present them, as to make ihem express the absurd opinion, 
that “the Liturgy constitutes the Church?’ Because they 
maintain that, asa general position, the Liturgy should av- 
company the Bible, and that no plan is correct, which, in 
principle, separates them, is there no exception to this posi- 
tion (though you admit Bishop Hobart states this exception ;) 
so that to those who will not receive the Prayer Book from 
their hands, the Bible is not to be distributed ; and that where 
the Bible is not needed, the Prayer Book is not to be given? 
Because, in noticing the propagation of Christianity by means 
of the Bible and Common Prayer Book, they advocate, where 
practicable, the union of the two, do they therefore under- 
value the ministry, which the Prayer Book sets forth, and 
which is essential to the full and beneficial use of it? It is 
wasting time to expose such sophistries, by which, however, 
«a Churchman of the diocese of New-York’? most zealously 
and gladly misrepresents his diocesan and the clergy, as well 
as his brethren the managers of Bible and Common Prayer 
Book Societies. 

I confess (and I make these remarks with all possible respect 
for individual character) that I consider the studious and ex- 
plicit separation, in the principle of their organization by Bi- 
ble Societies, of the Church of God from the Word of God, 
as not merely a cardinal defect, but (with due deference be 
it spoken) most glaring impropriety. I do not say that the 
members of these societies, in their individual capacity, or 
as members of other institutions, make this separation. I 


¥ 


42 


am ready to admit, what you take great pains to prove, that 
they are not deficient in zeal for the propagation of Christian- 
ity according to the views of their respective denominations. 
But I do assert, that Bible Societies, as such, do not recog- 
nise the doctrine, ministry, ordinances, and worship of the 
Christian Church. What system of doctrine do they profess? 
What ministry do they recognise? In what Christian ordi- 
nances do they participate? In what worship do they unite? 
As societies, they profess no doctrine, they recognise no mi- 
nistry, they participate in no ordinances, they unite in no 
worship. They are religious societies, instituted for the pro- 
pagation of Christianity; and yet, in their collective capacity 
as societies, they recognise no one distinctive feature of this 
blessed system. Letme not be misunderstood. I impute no 
such sentiments to the members of these institutions. I im- 
pugn the motives of no individual. But names (and you seek 
to overwhelm Bishop Hobart with their lustre) no more than 
‘‘ numbers can sanctify’? error. And whether this be error, 
let impartial men judge. 

It was the characteristic of “ the primitive Christians, that 
they” continued steadfastly in “ the Apostles’ doctrine and 
*¢ fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers.” 
Now, what would the Christians. of those days, the Chris- 
tians who drank deep at the fountain head of Divine truth, 
think of a society of Christians in modern times, who meet 
for a religious purpose, the diffusion of Divine truth, and 
yet recognise neither apostolic doctrine, fellowship, ordi- 
nances, nor worship? What would they think of a society 
extolled as eminently entitted to, and eminently enjoying, the 
favour of heaven, who on no occasion asa society, unite in acts 
of homage or of supplication to that Being, on whose Provi- 
dence, and without doubt with great sincerity, they profess to 
depend? In what light would the holy Ignatius, the disciple of 
St. John, whose admonition it was, “he that does any thing 
« without the Bishop, and the Presbyters, and the Deacons, is 
“not pure in his conscience,” view a religious institution, 
which, in its collective capacity, recognises neither Bishop, 


43 


Priest, nor Deacon? What would those holy martyrs, who 
met daily for the “ breaking of bread,”? and who, over the 
symbols of the body and blood of their Lord, sealed their 
mystical union with him and with each other, think of a num- 
ber of modern Christians, who set up as the bond of Christian 
unity, a society, in which, as a society, neither his divinity, 
nor his atonement, nor his Church, nor his worship, are re- 
cognised, but are studiously kept out of yiew ; which indeed 
admits to membership those who deny his divinity, reject his 
atonement, and cast away the ordinances and the ministry of 
his visible Church? I repeat it, | make no attack on indivi- 
duals. I respect the character and the motives of men who 
hold these fundamental errors. But what I say is the truth; 
and the occasion demands that the truth be spoken. 

I am perfectly aware of the reason of this marked separa- 
tion of the Word of God from the Church of God—that it is 
necessary to unite a// Christians in Bible Societies. But in 
my judgment no object can justify this violation of principle. 
It would. be absurd to say that it is al to the distribu- 
tion of the Bible. 


8. There is much mIsREPRESENTATION in your Letter, con- 
cerning the sentiments of the Bishops in England, and in this 
country, with respect to Bible Societies. 

You speak as if there could be no opposition but that of 
language. ‘The opposition of conduct is more serious. Many 
of the Bishops have not, in their Charges, opposed Bible So- 
cieties; therefore you argue they are not opposed to them. 
But I consider it perfectly plain, under the circumstances of 
the case, that Bishops withholding their support from Bible 
Societies, is evidence of their disapprobation of them. These 
Bible Societies come forward, professing the strongest claims 
to patronage, as the most powerful and efficacious instruments 
which the world ever witnessed of propagating Christianity ; 
they urge their claims with the imposing sanctions of num- 
bers, and rank, and station, and wealth, and zeal, and power. 
What motives then could influence a Bishop in withholding 


44 


his support from institutions thus recommended, but disappro- 
bation of them? To approve of these institutions, and yet ta 
withhold from them support, would indeed discover an in¢ 
consistency, and an indifference, which I should think even 
you would not impute to a Christian Bishop. 

Do you suppose that there is a Bishop in Great-Britainy 
whose opposition had not been declared, to whom applicas 
tion has not been made to support these societies? When 
every engine has been set in motion to enlist rank, and wealth, 
and station, in favour of these institutions, think you the Bi- 
shops would have been overlooked? Their withholding their 
support can be ascribed, under such circumstances, only to 
their disapprobation of these societies. 

You consider a Charge from a Bishop as the only peiileden, 
of his disapprobation of Bible Societies; and yet your own 
Letter (p. 22) furnishes evidence of the Bishop of Bath and 
Wells, (the diocesan of the Bishop of Gloucester, as Dean of 
Wells,) who, I believe, has never published any Charge to, 
his clergy, discountenancing the formation of an Ausiliary 
Bible Society. 

You give a list of Bishops who, since the year 1804, have, 
supported Bible Societies; and this you oppose to Bishop. 
Hobart’s statement of the Bishops who, at this. period, do not 
support these institutions, This is ingenious indeed. It may 
happen that, during the period of nineteen years, some pre- 
lates, filling the bishoprics which you name, may have pa- 
tronized Bible Societies, and yet not one of those now filling 
these stations may support them. And the point at issue be- 
tween you and Bishop Hobart is, as to what Bishops now sup- 
port Bible Societies; and you admit that “ their number is 
“* now a minority.”” With regard to the English Bishops, you 
do not attempt to disprove his statement, except In the case 
of the Archbishop of Canterbury. You rely on the fact of his 
being President of the Naval and Military Bible Society, in 
proof of his favouring Bible Societies in general; for you 
observe, “ the Naval and Military Bible Society does not in 
“ the least degree differ in principle from the British and Fo- 


Ad 


‘reign Bible Society.” Let us examiné thie point for a 
moment. The principle of the British and Foreign Bible 
Society is the exclusion of the Church—of all recognition of 
its doctrine, ministry, and worship; and, agreeably to this 
principle on which it is organized, may consist of those who 
differ as to doctrine, ministry, and worship, and even of those 
who, on these subjects, hold fundamental errors. The Naval 
and Military Bible Society, on the contrary, when the Arch- 
bishop of Canterbury took the presidency of it, mits principle 
recognised the Church; its mariaging committee consisting of 
Churchmen, holding the principles of the Church of England 
as to doctrine, ministry, and worship, The former cannot, 
on principle, admit of an union of thé Liturgy with the Bible 
as an object of distribution. There was not any thing in the 
latter, at the time the Archbishop of Canterbury connected 
himself with it, which prevented this union. Alterations have 
since indeed been made without his approbation, changing 
materially the character of the institation.* That he does 
not approve of the British and Foreign Bible Society, is un- 
doubtedly the fact. This is the case also with Dr. Howley, 
the present Bishop of London; and Dr. Van Mildert, the 
present Bishop of Landaff ; though the names of these Bishop- 
rics, and of several others, are so disposed on the page of your 
. Letter, as to make, at first view, the impression, that the Bi- 
shops who now fill them are members and officers of Bible 
Societies—which is not the fact. 

With respect to the Bishops in this country, you would 
convey the impression that, with the exception of Bishop Ho- 
bart, they are all in favour of Bible Societies ; for you ob- 
serve, (p. 38) that he is “ acting in direct opposition to the 
“‘ opinion of the Bishops of our communion officially deli- 
* vered.”” In proof of this, you proceed to quote from a Pas+ 
toral Letter of the House of Bishops in 1814, and remark on 
it, as if it were the act of all the present Bishops of our 


* The facts on this subject are stated in an Appendix to Norris’s Letter to the 
Eart of Liverpool. 


46 

Church. You conceal the fact, that Bishops Croes, and 
Kemp, and Bowen, and Chace, and Brownell, have since 
been consecrated. Of the present Bishops, Bishops White, 
Hobart, Griswold, and Moore, were alone parties to that 
Pastoral Letter. Of these it is well known that Bishops 
White, and Griswo]d, and Moore, are in favour of Bible So- 
cieties. Admitting (which I presume is the fact) that Bishop. 
Hobart agreed to that Pastoral Letter, it does not follow that. 
he approved of every part of it; it was sufficient to obtain 
his assent to it, that he liked it as a whole ; and this general 
approbation is not in the least incompatible with dislike to a 
particular part. In an instrument containing so much matter 
as a Pastoral Letter, that unanimity would seldom be attain-. 
ed, which, I understand, the Bishops, when assembled as @ 
House, are always desirous to secure, if an obnoxious passage. 
were made the ground of dissent by any one Bishop to the 
whole production, Jn Bishop Hobart’s then permitting this 
instrument to go forth with this passage without his opposi-. 
tion, what is there but a proof, in this instance at least, of. 
that moderation for which you are disposed to give him so 
little credit? In 1814, when that Letter was published, the 
American Bible Society was not in existence; there was no 
Bible Society in New-York, in which Episcopalians united ; 
and the New-York Bible and Common Prayer Book Society. 
had been established several years. In existing circumstances, 
therefore, there was no call for the opposition of Bishop Ho- 
bart to a general sentiment of approval of institutions founded 
for the distribution of the Bible. 

Your usual art, in misrepresenting Bishop Hobart, is dis 
played in a note, in which you attempt to fix on him the in- 
consistency of approving, one year, of a commendation, which, 
you assert, was passed on Bible Societies, by the Bishops in 
their Pastoral Letter—and the next year denouncing those 
societies. Whatis the remark of Bishop Hobart? “ This 
‘‘ Pastoral Letter contains such spiritual counsel as the situa- 
* tion of the Church seemed to require; and will, I trust, 
** evidence the solicitude of the Bishops, in their capacity as 


AT 


& the spiritual guardians of the Church, to promote the diffu- 
“ sion of evangelical piety, as professed in her Articles and 
‘« Liturgy; and, at the same time, to guard against all me- 
“ thods of effecting this desirable end, which are not agree- 
“able to the spirit of her apostolic and primitive institu- 
& tions.??* 
Now, what is the particular object of the Bishops which 
Bishop Hobart commends? “The diffusion of evangelical 
“ piety’’-—you intimate by the distribution of the Bible, and 
by Bible Societies strictly so called—No—“ The diffusion of 
evangelical piety as professed in her Articles and Liturgy” — 
and, of course, by the distribution of the Prayer Book, and 
religious tracts, in which the doctrines of the Articles and Li- 
turgy are contained and enforced—and Bishop Hobart ob- 
serves, that the Letter affords evidence of the solicitude of 
the Bishops “ to guard against all methods of effecting this de- 
* sirable end’’—(the diffusion of evangelical piety as professed 
in the Articles and Liturgy) “ which are not agreeable to the 
“ spirit of her apostolic and primitive institutions.” Now, 
what were the methods which Bishop Hobart had in view, 
would have been apparent, had you not stopped short your 
quotation in the middle of his sentence—for he goes on, “ and 
«‘ which uniform experience proves is ultimately injurious to 
« those sacred interests which it is the professed aim of those 
“¢ who may be inclined to these irregularities to advance.” 
In order to misrepresent Bishop Hobart, you omit a passage 
which completes his meaning, and stop in the middle ofa sen- 
tence! You would convey the impression, that Bishop Ho- 
bart commends that part of the Pastoral Letter of the Bishops 
‘which refers to Bible Societies. The whole sentence, had 
you quoted it, would prove that there is no allusion to those 
Societies, but to certain ‘* methods,’’ designed to advance 
the diffusion of evangelical piety as professed in the Arti- 
“ cles and Liturgy,” but which, Bishop Hobart observes, (this 
part of the sentence you omit,) “ uniform experience proves 


* Address to the Convention, 1814. 


48 


* is ultimately injurious to those sacred interests, which it if 
‘ the professed aim of those who may be inclined to these irre- 
“ gularities toadvance;”? and if we turn to the Pastoral Letter 
of the Bishops, we shall be at no loss as to the ‘¢ methods’? of 
diffusing evangelical piety, as professed in the Articles and Li- 
turgy, “ which are not agreeable to the spirit of the apostolic 
*‘ and primitive institutions of the Church, and which lead to 
“ irregularities,” &c. In this Pastoral Letter is the following 
passage: ‘“‘ We are aware, how easily there may take place 
“« counterfeit revivals of religion, and how often it has hap- 
* pened in different times and places. There are now alluded 
“ to, what has been the effect of violent agitations of the pas- 
“‘ sions, suddenly excited and soon subsiding. We neither 
‘‘aim nor rejoice at such revivals ; perceiving nothing like 
“them either in the word of God, or in the history of the 
‘¢ primitive Church; nor any thing favouring them in the in- 
“ stitutions of our own. Accordingly, when we refer to a 
*“ srowing attention to religion, we mean of that cast which is 
‘“‘ agreeable to truth and soberness, and congenial with the 
*‘ known devotions of our Church. While we thus define the 
‘¢ religious profession which we are desirous of perpetuating, 
“we do not set up any institutions as conceiving them to be 
‘“‘ acceptable to God, any further than as the outward form 
‘“* may be expressive of an inward powers But we do not aim 
* at revivals of religion, in a departure from the principles of 
“ Christian worship, which we believe to have descended to 
‘‘ us from Jesus Christ and his Apostles, through the channel 
‘of the primitive Church, and of the Church of England.” 

Tam truly tired of exposing the artful misrepresentations 
by which you seek to hold Bishop Hobart up to contempt and 
odium. I do not know whether you will say with me—Eheu! 
jam satis est—I suspect the readérs of this Letter are disposed 
to use this exclamation. Imust, however, entreat their pa- 
tience till I have fulfilled the whole of my task. 

With respect to what you represent the arrogance of Bishop 
Hobart, in opposing the epinion of all his brethren, the Bi- 
shops, let it be observed, that this is the point which remains 


49 


to be proved. ' For aught which appears to the contrary, five 
at least, if not six, of the ten American Bishops, in no respect 
support Bible Societies, which, under the circumstances of the 
case, must be considered as evidence of the opinion, that their 
flocks, to whom their conduct/should be an example, ought 
not to support them—and Bishop Hobart certainly acts in 
accordance with the conduct of the Archbishops, and a ma- 
jority of the Bishops of the Church of England, as well as of 
those of the Church of Ireland. Let it be recollected, too, 
the question is, in his view, one of principle—and, in such a 
case, no man can be accused of arrogance in acting accord- 
ing to the best dictates of his judgment, particularly if he 
give reasons so plausible as to exempt him from the imputa- 
tion of acting merely. from caprice or self-will. 


9. You misrepresent Bishop Hobart by the assertion, 
that he has assailed the Episcopalians in general who sup- 
port Bible Societies, with the charge of supporting an institu- 
tion “‘calculated to produce an indifference to the essentials 
of Christianity ;* and with having insinuated that the three 
Rectors of Churches in this city ‘ have been less zealous and 
“ faithful in the discharge of their parochial duties than their 
‘“‘ brethren, who have bowed to his (Bishop Hobart’s) autho- 
66 rity.” ; 

This is a most serious accusation. A Diocesan charges a 
large pertion of his flock with supporting a system calculated 
to produce an indifference to “ the essentials of Christianity.” 
This however they might do ignorantly and unintentionally. 
Even admitting that Bishop Hobart had preferred this charge, 
there is in it no impeachment of character or of motive. But 
you further represent him as at least insinuating against three 
of his Presbyters, “ who have supported Bible Societies,”’ that 
they have been “ less zealous and faithful than their brethren, 
“‘ who have bowed submissively to his authority.” 

Sir, what is your proof of Bishop Hobart having made these 


* Letter, p. 4 + Letter, p. 65. 
G 


50 
charges and insinuations? I know of none but what is con- 
tained in the following sentence of his address: “ As it re- 
* spects Churchmen, the tendency ef these Societies has ap- 
“ peared to me not less injurious than the principle on which 
“‘ they are founded is erroneous. They inculcate that general 
‘¢ liberality which considers the differences among Christians 
“ as non-essential; and they thus tend to weaken the zeal of 
‘< Episcopalians in favour of those distinguishing principles of 
“ their Church which eminently entitle her to the appellation 
‘* of apostolical and primitive.” 

And is it possible, that even with your talent for this pur- 
pose, you can distort this passage so as to make it support the 
accusation which you bring against Bishop Hobart. There is 
no mention in it of the ‘ essentials of Christianity,” and not 
a word occurs that can possibly be construed as the slightest 
insinuation against the zeal or fidelity of any Clergyman. 
By this misrepresentation, however, yeu hoped to answer 
two favourite purposes : to depress Bishop Hobart, and to ex- 
alt “* the Rector of St. George’s.”” You mention, indeed, the © 
Rectors of Christ Church, and St. Stephen’s—but “the Rector 
* of St. George’s’’ enjoys the largest share of your attention. 
The other gentlemen, perhaps, are not altogether “ultras” as 
to your opinions. One of them, indeed, the Rector of Christ 
Church, is an active supporter of the New-York Bible and 
Common Prayer Book Society, which you denounce—and 
went so far as to preach an excellent sermon in its favour in 
the different Churches in this city. You decidedly think that 
Bible and Common Prayer Book Societies ought not to be as- 
sisted. What says the Rector of Christ Church—“ Ought this 
“ society to be assisted? Now, though this question can 
“ hardly be put by any one who ‘ professes and calls himself a 
‘“‘ Christian,’ it being the object of the society to distribute 
“ the Bible; nor by any one who calls himself a Churchman, the 
‘“¢ object of the society being the circulation of the Prayer Book 
“also; we will, nevertheless, examine it under the full convic- 
“ tion, that both these objects will appear upon examination to 
* merit the most liberal patronage of all who most earnestly 


51 


* desire ‘that peace and happiness, truth and justice, religion 
“‘ and piety, may be established among us for ail genera- 
tions.’ ”* ‘The Rector of Christ Church, “ though one of 
“« the Prophets,”’ has not the gift of foresight.. The question 
which he concludes could hardly be asked, is now asked and 
answered in the negative by one who calls himself “a 
“ Churchman of the Diocese of New-York.” 

The Rector of St. George’s, however, is the particular 
subject of your panegyric. Among the knot of individuals in 
this Diocese who are hostile to the official character and con- 
duct of Bishop Hobart, this gentleman is doubtless regarded 
as the Nestor—net always “‘ Néewe ndverqs”—for his words, I fear, 
are not always the sweet spoken words of moderation and 
of peace. I say, for the fact is noterious, that there is a knot 
of individuals hostile to the efficial character and conduct of 
Bishop Hobart; whe, a priori, are disposed to condemn all 
his acts. They may allow him “talents, and zeal, and 
“ acquirements ;’’ but both, they assert, are directed to ad- 
vancing a narrow and bigotted policy, and both are often ex- 
erted with intolerance and tyranny, and to subserve the views 
of personal ambition. His real crime is—difference in cer- 
tain respects as to principle and policy from the Rector of St. 
George’s, and certain other persons ; and an independence 
which firmly pursues the dictates of duty, however interfering 
with their principles and views. If Bishop Hobart would 
never express opinions, or advocate measures of which they 
disapprove, and would, in all cases, counsel andact as he knew 
would be agreeable to the Rector of St. George’s, and the 
«Churchman ef the Diocese of New-York,” we should never 
hear of his intolerance, his tyranny, and his ambition.t 


* Sermon, &c. p. 6, 7. 

+ There is no case in which the responsibility of a Bishop is greater than in the ad- 
mission to the ministry. And no case in which he should receive more cordial sup- 
port than in every attempt to keep from it unworthy persons, Ina recent case, a 
Gandidate was refused orders, for the manifestation, in numerous instances, and in 
one most public and glaring, of tempers wholly alien from the spirit of the 

- Christian ministry, and leading to a gross attack upon character. And yet the ob- 


52 


And yet, unless I am much misinformed, the whole ex- 
tent of Bishop Hobart’s intolerance and tyranny has con- 
sisted in his honestly and faithfully doing what, in his official 
capacity, was his duty, and in his private ene his right; 
and advocating the principles and the measures which he 
judged correct. ‘The zeal and fidelity of the Rector of St. 
George’s, in the discharge of parochial duties, he never, as I 
believe, impeached. Your insinuation that he did so is incor- 
rect and gratuitous. For what have the zeal and fidelity of 
the Rector of St. George’s to do with the tendency of Bible 
associations, to lessen the attachment of Episcopalians to 
the distinguishing principles of their Church? What are 
those distinguishing principles? Not the doctrines of the 
sinfulness of man, of the divinity and atonement of Jesus 
Christ, of justification by faith in his merits, of the influences 
of the Holy Spirit—for these are common to that Church with 
other communities. The distinguishing principles of the 
Church are—Episcopacy and a Liturgy—the conveyance of 
the ministerial commission from the Divine Head of the 
Church, through the order of Bishops, as distinct from and 
superior to Presbyters—and the worship of God, according to 
a prescribed form. As to the former distinguishing principle 
of the Church, I have never heard much of the zeal of the 
Rector of St. George’s in regard toit. And I cannot think 
his very intimate connexion with the American Bible Society 
is calculated to excite it—for really there is so much in these 
associations of a kind of competition in professions of liberali- 
ty, of Christians being all one, the differences among them 
non-essential, &c. &c. that what is so much on the tongue 
comes finally (the transition is natural and easy) into the head, 


viously proper conduct of Bishop Hobart, in refusing to consider this person as a 
Candidate for orders, has exposed him to the misrepresentations and invectives of the 
* knot of individuals” above alluded to; (I do not know, however, that the “ Church- 
“ man of the Diocese of New-York” concurs with them in this case ;) and unwearied 
pains have been taken by them and others, who have lately assumed the charge of 
the interests of religion, to excite public sentiment against him fer tyranny, inteler- 
ance, and oppression. 


53 


and operates as a settled opinion and principle of action. 
With respect to the zeal of the Rector of St. George’s for the 
latter distinguishing principle of the Church, the worship of 
Almighty God according to a prescribed form, I have some 
things to tell. You have provoked this discussion. And if 
it should be disagreeable to the Rector of St. George’s Church, 
he must thank you. Your panegyric of him, and indelicate 
comparison of his zea/ for the Church with that of his Dio- 
cesan, and others, render these remarks necessary. He must 
therefore thank you; and himself too, if he was privy to your 
counsel, particeps consili. 

Every clergyman of the Episcopal Church, at his ordina- 
tion, assumes the most solemn obligation to conform to the 
worship of the Church; and one of its canons explicitly en- 
joins “ the use, before all sermons and lectures, &c. of the Book 
** of Common Prayer; and forbids the use of any other pray- 
‘‘ ers than those contained in that book.” 

I presume that the change of the service from a church to 
any other building—to a lecture-room, for example—cannot 
diminish or vary the force of this obligation ; and that the mi- 
nister, who in the church adheres to the Liturgy, and in the 
lecture-room mutilates it,,uses only some of its prescribed 
prayers, and, after an extempore lecture, pours forth an ex, 
tempore prayer, ought not to be panegyrized for his zeal for 
this distinguishing principle of the Church—a Liturgy. I 
confess such conduct looks to me very much like a wish to 
get rid of it, when and as far as he decently can. And ‘any 
shrewd non-episcopalian might accost him thus :—My dear 
Sir, I thought you preferred a form of prayer for worship, 
and I have heard many ingenious and very plausible argu- 
ments in favour of set forms. But it seems these arguments 
apply only to the use of the Liturgy in the Church, and there 
only yeur preference exists; for in the lecture-room the ar- 
guments all vanish, and there, where you seem more at home, 
more earnest, more interested, more gratified, your prefer- 
ence dies away, and you give as little of the set form, and as 
much of the extempore performance, as you well can.—The 


54 


non-episcopalian may surely inquire as to the consistency of 
all this, and as to its evidence of extraordinary zeal for the 
distinguishing principles of the Church. 

Again. The Episcopal Church has provided a form of daily 
morning and evening prayer. So far from discouraging prayer 
meetings, she encourages them daily—morning and evening ; 
and has provided for them a form—a form universally ex- 
tolled as the purest and the best that human wisdom ever 
produced. 

If, then, a congregation, or a portion of a congregation, 
meet for social worship, and do not use either the morning 
or the evening prayer which the Church has prescribed, 
but permit the brethren in succession to pray and to exhort— 
if these also be not the older, and the more stayed and 
prudent, but the younger, and the less steady and discreet— 
and if all this be done with the concurrence of the minister 
—I must be excused if I defer admitting this as evidence of 
his extraordinary zeal for the distinguishing principles of the 
Church. 

Now, Sir, lest you should say that Bishop Hobart has been 
instigating me to make these remarks, and denounce him as 
intolerant, and persecuting, and an enemy to every mean of 
-promoting vital godliness, 1 will not quote from him, but from 
the “ venerable Bishop of Pennsylvania.””? I use the term 
by which you designate Bishop White, and I use it in the 
deepest sincerity—venerable, in years, and in the qualities 
and virtues that adorn the man, the Christian, and the Bishop. 
What says Bishop White on these points? In a sermon, 
- .preached before the General Convention in 1804, on the 
_ occasion of the consecration of a Bishop, he observes as fol- 
lows :— 

‘‘ | trust it is an evidence of the good providence of God 
“ over our Church, and it is certainly one of the most encou- 
“ raging circumstances in my administration of her concerns, 
“ that her Bishops have never been called on to admit into 
“¢ their number any person, under the influence of the spirit 
“< of innovation, which, in a variety of ways, is aiming at ine 


55 


“ roads on that holy system of rational and evangelical devo- 
‘6 tion which we have inherited from our parent Church, and 
‘‘ which has been handed down to her from the pure source 
‘< of primitive belief and practice. Should such a case occur, 
“ [ am persuaded of my Right Rev. Brethren, and, under the 
‘ hope of Divine aid, it is my determination in regard to my 
‘¢ own conduct, that there shall be a resistance of a measure 
‘so directly tending to the dishonour, and, eventually, the 
“ ruin of our communion. We cannot, however, but have ob- 
“ served with the most poignant sorrow, that even our desire 
‘s of extending the kingdom of the Redeemer has been a door 
‘‘ of admission to the ministry of persons who disdain what- 
“‘ ever restraints may be imposed by public reason on private 
“fancy. And, indeed, it gives us one of the most melancholy 
‘¢ views which can be taken of human nature, to find evils of 
“ this magnitude arising out of a combination of extraordinary 
‘“‘ apparent piety, with a disregard of the most explicit pro- 
‘6 mises which can be made, in one of the most solemn acts to 
“© which Religion can give her sanction. If through the me- 
‘*¢ dium of imposing recommendations and more imposing per- 
“ fidy, we have been sometimes betrayed into the admission 
‘‘ of Presbyters of this description, it is to be hoped that sub- 
* sequent experience of them will be a bar to their introduc- 
“ tion to the Episcopacy.”’ 

Again, in the Pastoral Letter of the Bishops in 1811— 
“‘ Considering the description of subjects on which we are 
‘“‘ now addressing you, it would be an omission, not to entreat 
‘¢ you to aid us in our endeavours to carry into effect the can- 
“‘ ons of our Church generally; and especially the provisions 
“‘ made for the using of her services agreeably to the rubricks. 
‘“¢ And although this is a matter which belongs more immedi- 
“‘ ately to the clergy, yet we think it not unworthy of the laity 
“6 to discountenance deviations, if made by any minister in 
‘“‘ contrariety to his solemn promises at ordination. We our- 
“selves are not only under a common weight of obligation 
‘¢ with all the clergy, but make an especial promise at our 
“ consecration, of ‘ conformity and obedience to the doctrine, 


56 


“‘ discipline, and worship’ of our Church. Now, one part of 
‘« the discipline is the looking to the maintenance of order by 
“ others in those three departments. We have been sensibly 
“‘ affected by some instances of the breach of promises made 
“‘ to us, under solemn appeals to God, and invocations of the 
“ testimony of his Church. We should hold ourselves want- 
*‘ing to our subject, if we were not now to declare our dis- 
“ appointment, and to invite to the irregularity the disappro- 
“ bation of all persons who entertain a sease of the obliga- 
“ tions of integrity and truth. We do this the more readily, 
‘“‘ as there have not been wanting occasions when displeasure 
‘thas been manifested in the premises with good effect, by. 
“¢ judicious lay members of congregations on which the:i irre- 
‘¢ gularities have been obtruded.” 

Still more explicit and decided are the following extracts 
from an Essay written by him, and published in the Christian 
Journal,* entitled, “ An Essay on Religious Societies and 
‘‘ Prayer Meetings: such as are herein defined.” 

“‘ The description of society to be objected to, is the bring- 
“ ing together of a select portion of a congregation, under the 
“‘ exercise of a mode of worship unknown in the institutions 
‘* of the Church to which such a religious party belongs. The 
“ Church to which the subject will refer, is that known by the 
“ name of Protestant and Episcopal. . 

“ Such societies have been, and for ever will be a mean 
‘* of seducing from the worship of the communion of the Epis- 
“copal Church. She supposes that her use of a form of 
“‘ prayer, in preference to that which is extempore, is coun- 
‘“‘ tenanced by our Saviour and his Apostles, and by the prac- 
“ tice of primitive times. If the opinion be erroneous, it 
‘‘ should be,abandoned ; not only in the school-room and in 
‘the barn, but in the house set apart for divine worship. If 
‘‘ the opinion be correct, to undermine it insidiously must be 
** contrary not only to true religion, but to moral honesty. It 
“is evident, that for the accomplishing of the object, the fol- 


* Vol. iii, p. 279, 281, 314, $15, 316. 


5? 


“ fowing device is likely to be efficient. A’ minister may 
“ officiate in the public offices ; his doing so being essential 
‘ to the holding of his station, and the qualifying of himself 
to make a schism. But at the same time he may provide a 
‘s retreat, to which he will withdraw a portion of his flock, in 
* order to join with him in the effusions of a devotion eman- 
« cipated from the appointed forms. Whatever piety, or the 
“ appearance of it, he may possess, it is evidently made use 
‘* of to the injury of the Church, of which he calls himself a 
‘ministers We know, that this was the beginning of the se- 
“ paration of the Methodists. And ever since that event, 
there has been a similar issue in various neighbourhoods of 
“the United States. 

«© What would be thought of the minister of an anti-episco- 
“ pal congregation, who should provide a similar retreat for 
*¢ a portion of his flock, in which they might join with him in 
‘a prescribed form of prayer; and with one another, in re- 
* sponses like those in the service of the Episcopal Church ? 
* Could he give more unequivocal evidence that his heart 
“ were in this species of devotion, and that he practised the 
* other merely in submission to authority? In the two cases, 
‘¢ the inconsistency is the same; and there is a similar con-< 
*¢ flict of inclination with public duty. 

“ So far as the observation of the present writer qualifies 
* him to judge, the species of devotion spoken of has a direct 
s¢ tendency to elate the practisers of it with a high opinion of 
“‘ their own righteousness, and a low estimate of the piety of 
“ their fellow-worshippers in the prescribed worship of the 
“Church. This is a point which should be spoken to with 
“ caution, lest there should be an incurring of the fault con- 
‘templated. It is also recollected, that there is great diver- 
“ sity, according to the difference of personal character. In 
“ addition to all this, the experience of other persons may 
‘shave produced opposite results. Still, the writer must be 
“¢ so faithful to his subject as to declare, that, during his life, 
*‘ he has been in the habit of meeting with strong “evidences 
“‘ of the tendency suggested. He will again recur to the iden- 

H , 


58 

tity of the principle with that of pharisaism. We find ott 
“ Savioar loading its professors with the heavy charge, of 
* ¢ trusting in themselves, that they were righteous, and de~ 
“ spising others.’ Yet this hindered not its being mentioned 
“as a part of the pharisaical character, in an example exhi- 
“ bited in 2 parable, his ‘ thanking of God’—thus ascribing to 
*« Divine grace—that he was ‘ not as other men.’ Now, wher 
‘* we observe persons taking a high stand of profession, bes 
“ cause of practices not required by any divine institution, 
“ nor by the general authority delegated to the Church, of 
“¢ doing all things decently and in order; when we hear 
“them disparaging any of their brethren, for limiting the 
“ public exercises of their devotion by the legitimate stand: 
“ard just now stated ; and branding them as formalists, and 
“as persons destitute of vital prety, for no other reason than 
‘¢ dissent in the premises ; and above all, when consent there- 
* in will cause the grossest violations of moral obligation te 
‘s dwindle into imperfections, not supposed to forfeit the name 
‘“‘ of Christian ; he cannot discharge his conscieace without 
*¢ declaring his opinion, that such is the tendency of the con- 
templated societies. It is still said with the reserve, of not 
** intending to wound the feelings of any who may have joined 
‘“‘ them from pure intentions. But at the same time, let the 
* subject suggest a solemn admonition to sueh persons, to 
*¢ judge on it for themselves: and if further experience should 
‘“ convince them of the tendency here affirmed, Tet them sa- 
“ crifice appearances to truth; avoiding such assemblies, and 
‘“‘ having recourse to the legitimate sources of instruction. 

“ Let us not hesitate to go to what is in some minds the 
‘¢ root of this matter in a property of human nature, which, 
“ like every other property of it, must have its uses, and yet 
*¢ may lead to sin. What is here meant, is a desire of dis- 
‘* tinction; which, as it cannot always accomplish its object 
“ by what is singularly excellent and laudable, fixes on singu~ 
“ larity itself as the object to be aimed at. 

“ In the societies now the subject, it is well known, that 
“< the point in which they are the most apt to give offence to 


59 


# sober-minded Christians, is the high excitement of animal 
sensibility. An aspirant to the reputation of eminent saint: 
* ship, finds fuel for the fire in whatever dazzles the imagi+ 
* nation, or agitates the passions, ‘There is a constitutional 
f* predisposition in some.persons, which has often raised a 
‘man to the reputation of the highest grade of sanctity, con- 
* sistently with the harbouring of the most malicious passions, 
“and sometimes with the indulging ef the most Jicentious 

* practices. 

“ The title calls for remarks on what are denominated 
*¢ Prayer Meetings. 

** It would be ungodly to object to religious assembling, 
merely on the ground that it is for devotion only, without 
the intermixture of pastoral instruction. The Church of 
“ England, and in imitation of her, the Episcopal Church in 
*‘ the United States, have so framed their services, as ta pro- 
** vide for daily morning and evening prayer throughout the 
*¢ year, where so edifying a routine is practicable. It is ta be 
“‘ wished, that in every city and considerable town of the 
‘¢ Jatter, as of the former, there were the daily performance 
* of these seryices in some church or churches. It is a pro- 
*¢ vision, which has deeply interested the affections of many, 
‘¢ whose leisure, combining with their piety, has induced such 
“¢ an habitual attendance on the sanctuary, as likened them to 
‘* holy Simeon, and holy Anna, and other saints of old. 

“ But the prayer meetings here contemplated, are those 
“‘ wherein a fry of young striplings are called on, one after 
“ another, to exercise their gifts of prayer: thus degrading 
“ the holy exercise by reiterated requests for the same mer- 
*¢ cies, with a diversity of language ; to which a scope is given 
‘¢ for no other possible purpose, than that of improving the 
*¢ talents of the persons thus put in requisition. Such young 
“men, if designed for the ministry, could not adopt a more 
s¢ effectual expedient for the being called off from a solid pre- 
Li paration, and for the filling of them with self-conceit. It js 
se also an invasion of the ministerial office, as sustained in the 
cs twenty-third article of the Church. But even these consi- 


66 


‘‘ derations are comparatively unimportant, under the weigh} 
« of that of the freedom taken with the great Hearer of prayer, 
“ and with a duty of such solemnity. So far as is here known, 
‘“‘ the license is an invention of modern times. There was a 
“ period in the history of the Church of England, when much 
“ diversity of opinion prevailed among her divines, on the 
“ subject of bringing together smatterers in theology, to give 
“ scope to their gifts in exercises which passed under the 
“name of prophesyings. It is probable, that such occasions 
* were opened and concluded with prayer. But the professed 
* object of them was improvement in sacred knowledge ; and 
“ it does not appear, that the drilling of the speakers to utter- 
“ ance in prayer, was any part of the design; or that they 
“‘ were called on to pray after one another, in the manner 
* here contemplated. It is a modern invention, and profane. 

“« Tt is not here unknown, of the ministers who favour the 
‘censured practices, that they disavow the being hostile to 
“ the Liturgy. We may hope that they are sincere ; although 
« we cannot forget the many instances in which the same pro- 
* fession has been made under similar circumstances, and 
“ continued no longer than until a crisis favourable—some 
“¢ will say, for the gratification ‘of personal ambition, or, as 
*‘ may have been thought by themselves—for the ances: 
“ing of a greater mass of good.” 

The above are the sentiments of one whom the Rector of. 
St. George’s, in a letter which I have presented, (p. 22 of this 
ais ni: styles “ the venerable Bishop of Pennsylvania,” and 

‘in immediate ‘connexion with whom” he boasts of having 
acted for many years in Bible Societies—they are the senti- 
ments of one whom you style the ‘« truly venerable Bishop of 
** Pennsylvania,”* and “ whose spirit of meekness, Christian 
“charity, and kindness,”? you justly extol, and significantly 
hold up “ fo the imitation of other dioceses.”t Bishop Ho- 
bart doubtless approves these sentiments, and would deem it 
an honour to have expressed them; but had he done so, I 


* Letter, p. 76. 7 Letter, p. 8. 


61 
suspect we should not have heard much of his “ meeknegs, 
s Christian charity, and kindness.” 

To shield Bishop White from the charge of deficiency in 

vital godliness, on account of his opposition to Prayer Meet- 
ings, let us hear what the Rev. Thomas Scott, the author of 
the Commentary on the Bible, says concerning them. Speak- 
ing of their effects at Olney, where the famous Mr. Newton 
had preceded him, he says—- 
"© Their Prayer Meetings proved hot-beds, on which super- 
“ficial and discreditable preachers were hastily raised up, 
‘“¢ who, going forth on the Lord’s day to the neighbouring pa- 
“‘ rishes, intercepted those who used to attend Mr. Newton. 
“ Men were called to pray in public, whose conduct after- 
“‘ wards brought adeep disgrace on the Gospel. They pro- 
‘6 duced a captious, criticising, self-wise spirit, so that even 
‘“¢ Mr. Newton himself could seldom please them. They ren- 
“ dered the people so contemptuously indifferent te the wor- 
ce ship of God at the church, that 1 never before or since wit- 
“ nessed any thing like it.””* 

You adduce the subject of Sunday Schools as another proof 
of the superior zeal of the Episcopal Clergy connected with 
the American Bible Society, in favour of the principles of 
their Church: and you dwell with a great deal of display on the 
circumstance, that, before Sunday Schools were organized in 
the other Episcopal Churches, they were established in those 
whose Rectors were connected with the American Bible So- 
ciety! In the latter they were established in 1816, in the 
former in 1817! 

If there be any matter in which one would think all the 
Episcopal Clergy could cordially unite, it is in a plan for the 
gratuitous instruction of the children of the poor in Sunday 
Schools; what you style, with your usual pathos, “ the spi- 
*¢ ritual sustenance of the lambs of their flock.”? The public 
religious instruction of the young is preeminently a duty of 
the Christian Church, and should be under the control of its 


* Life of the Rev. Dr. Scott, Philadelphia Edition, p. 463. 


6z 


authority. ‘That in this business there should be an “ admix- 
“ ture of administrations ;” that an Episeopal Sunday School 
should in any respect, however indirect, be subject to the 
control, or under the cognizance of other denominations; 
should be liable to the visitation of male and female mana- 
gers of other religious communities, and not to the sole in- 
struction of the ecclesiastical authority of its own Church, is 
in the highest degree preposterous. But the Sunday School of 
St. George’s is thus situated. It is separate from the “ New- 
“ York Protestant Episcopal Sunday School Society,” and 
connected with what is called “ the New-York Sunday School 
*¢ Union Society,” consisting of Presbyterians, Baptists, and 
others. But a few days since I noticed in a newspaper ap 
account of the anniversary meeting of the “ Female Sabbath 
“School Union Society,” held in the Presbyterian Church im 
Murray-street, from which the following is an extract : -- 

“ The Rev. Dr. Rowan, of the Presbyterian Church, pre- 
‘ sided, and delivered the diplomas, with a suitable address, 
“ to twenty-seven candidates for that honour. The Rev. Mr. 
* Chace, of the Baptist Church, opened the meeting with 
* prayer; the Rev. Mr. Ross, of the Methodist Episcopal, 
« Church, delivered an eloquent address to the audience and 
* the society; the Rev. Dr. Milnor, of the Episcopal Church, 
read the report; and the Rev. Dr. Milledoller, of the Re- 
“ formed Dutch Church, made the concluding prayer; and 
“ the presiding minister pronounced the benediction. The 
“ harmony of feeling, and evident interest shown by the Rev. 
“ Gentlemen engaged, was a strong confirmation of holy 
“ writ, ‘ behold how good and how pleasant it is for brethren 
% to dwell together in unity.’ ”” 

And at the very moment of my writing, I see announced, 
among a list of officers of the New-York Sunday School 
Union Society, above referred to, “ Rev. James Milnor, 
President.” 

The part which the Rector of St. George’s takes in keeping 
himself separate from the Sunday School Society of the Epis; 
copal Church, and connecting himself with one consisting of 


63 


ult denominations, and assuming the office of president there- 
of, may be a very popular measure. The circumstance is cer- 
tainly an illustration of the very great readiness of other de- 
Rominations to honour an Episcopal Clergyman of a certain 
way of thinking and acting. The policy of this is very well 
understood— Divide et impera. Hence the compliments which 
are passed on the spirituality, and the piety, and the liberality, 
of certain Episcopalians, and the distinctions conferred upon 
them; and the misrepresentations and denunciations. of b7- 
gotry, and formality, and want of vital Godliness, heaped on 
others. But how far his conduct is to be regarded as evi- 
dence of his “ zeal for the distinguishing principles of the 
Church,” let us hear the testimony of the “ venerable Bi- 
shop of Pennsylvania,” in immediate connexion with whom, 
let it be remembered, it is his boast that he acted in reference 
to Bible Societies. 

In an address to the Convention of Pennsylvania, in 1818, 
Bishop White observes, ‘‘ There is another species of cha- 
* ritable institutions, which I beg leave to recommend on this 
* occasion. It is that of the gratuitous instruction of the 
“‘ children of the poor in Sunday Schools.—But it is my 
‘‘ earnest recommendation, that whatever efforts may be put 
‘‘ forth by my Reverend Brethren, for the extending of 
* this species of beneficent institution, the instruction of them 
*‘ embrace the principles of Christian faith and worship, as 
‘‘ maintained in this Church, and be under the control of its 
“ Ministry. There is an apparent liberality in the contrary 
‘‘ scheme; but it is never consistently acted on, so far as my 
. * knowledge extends. If it should be acted on, there must 
*¢ be a surrendry of Christian verity.” 

The subject is again pressed by the Bishop in nearly the 
same terms, twice in the ensuing year, 1819, in his address 
to the Convention, and in a sermon at the assembling ef the 
Sunday Schools; and in his address in 1820. And in 1821, 
he thus remarks: ‘ Our Sunday Schools continue their be- 
* neficial operation. We may hope that it will be more and 
-“ more felt; and that there will be an honourable emulation 


64 


“among the different religious societies, in regard to thé 
“mass of good to be respectively achieved by them. On 
“¢ this ground, they may all cultivate esteem for one another, 
‘¢ But in our Church it is essential to this object, that there 
“ should be excluded all exterior influence: which, instead of 
producing liberality, as is imagined by some, is sure to 
“‘Jead to contention, having never been attempted, without 
“ the exaction of our yielding some of the properties of our 
“ system, conceived of by us as important.” 

T am afraid your ostentatious display of the zeal of the 
Rector of St. George’s for the Church, to the disparagement 
of that of his Diocesan, and of some of his brethren, has 
not proved very fortunate. 

You present a very minute statement, no doubt pro- 
perly sanctioned, of the increase of the number of commu- 
nicants in St. George’s, since it has been under the charge of 
its present Rector. This increase is doubtless evidence of 
his “ zeal in the discharge of parochial duties,” which, so far 
as I know, has not been impeached, and of the general piety 
of his congregation. But so far from being evidence of his 
zeal for the distinguishing principles of the Church, it may be 
in some measure the consequence of his neglect of them. 
Great professions of what is styled liberality, accompanied by 
what is called very liberal conduct, and the use of popular 
means, if accompanied with zeal and industry, and a portion 
of popular talent, are, under certain circumstances, quite 
sufficient to account for the increase of an Episcopal congre- 
gation and its communicants, without assigning even the least 
influence to the zeal of the Pastor for the distinguishing prin- 
ciples of the Church. But are accessions of this kind, of 
which the Rector of St. George’s is known frequently to boast, 
cause of congratulation? On the contrary, the increase within 
her fold of those who hold opinions, and indulge in practices 
alien from her spirit and institutions, would be just cause of 
alarm to the Episcopal Church. Numerical strength is not 
invariably real strength. This consists not in numbers, but in 
soundness and purity of principles. The voice of inspiration 


65 


hath said—‘* A man’s worst enemies are those of his own 
*¢ household.’’* 


* One of the most active communicants of St. George’s Church 7s, or was, at the 
time to which I shall refer, Editor of the Christian Herald—a periodical journal 
originally established by Presbyterians, and supported chiefly by them. In the num- 
bers of this work for November and December last, appears a review of a book, 
entitled, “Thoughts on the Anglican and American Anglo-Churches,” &e.t And 
in this review, abounding indeed with many professions of respect for the Church 
of England, the Episcopal Church in this country, and the Book of Common Prayer, 
appear the following remarks :— 

“In the charge of formalism, fixed upon the established Church of England, our 
author includes the wnestablished Episcopal Church of our own couniry, whose 
«° formelism, also the cause of its inefficiency in the genera diffusion of divine 
“€ truth, he successfully labours to expose.” 

*€ The Episcopal Ministers for America, were ordained and promoted with the 
* same worldly views as the Bishops, Priests, and Deacons of the mother country. 
* Hence the sturdy and systematic opposition which many of ovr Ecclesiasties have 
‘kept up against religious zeal exhibited in prayer meetings, conference meet- 
“ings, and conventicles, or, rather, against the doctrines of the total depravity of 
“‘ human nature, spiritual regeneration, justification by faith, &e. is a part of-a le- 
“ pacy which the American Anglo-Church inherits from her ‘ politico clerico’ pa- 
** rent. The American Anglo-Church is a stream from that fountain which was 
“€ contaminated by the influence of the State—a branch of that Church which cast 
*‘ out such men as Baxter—which, for many years, both at home and here, has 
“* been gloryingin her shame, and deriding ail true evangelical piety. We believe, 
“indeed, that formalism has been of as rank a growth here as in England; and 
“* that until of late, zeal and faith were-as unpopular in our Episcopal body as in the 
“ establishment of England.” 

“ There arein the American Episcopal Church, Bishops devoted to the spread of 
“the Gospel, and who use their Episcopal oversight, with advantages which no pa- 
**yish Minister can command. In this Diocese even, (New-York,) where the op- 
position to the Bible Society has been the most unblushing, there is an irrepressi- 
ble elasticity, an wnconguerable word, whose movements, «ppearing on every 
* side, would baffle an Episcopal AIRS cue, with an hundred eyes, and an hundred 
“ hands.” 

Tn a long list of Presbyterian Clergymen, and others, recommending the work 
from which the above extracts are taken, appears the name of the Rector of St. 
George’s Church. 

Another active Communicant of St. George’s is Treasurer of the New-York Sun- 
day School Union Society, which consists, as before observed, of all denominations, 
and one or two more are managers. This circumstance is not mentioned in dispa- 
ragement of the characters of these individusls, but I doubt its being evidence of 
their attachment to the distinguishing principles of the Church. I could go into 
further particulars, but the subject, is unpleasant and invidious. - It was, however, in- 
troduced by the “ Churchman.” 


+ The author of this work, too, was, at the time of its publication, a communi- 
cant of St. George’s. “ 


tI 


66 


1 have often felt desirous to ascertain what you consider 
the distinguishing principles of the Church, and the ground of 
your attachment to it. I at length came to the following sen- 
tence of your Letter :—‘‘ The following extract from the re- 
“¢ port of a [the Bedford] Prayer Book Society, in your own 
“ Diocese, established in the congregation to which the Pre- 
 sident of the National Bible Society belongs, indicates, it 
“must be admitted, no want of attachment to the Church.” 
Now, I thought, I shall be gratified—I shall find the ground of 
the attachment of the ‘“* Churchman of the Diocese of New- 
** York”? to his Church—and I read, with almost breathless 
anxiety, the extract from the report:—‘ The most diffusive 
‘“* Christian charity is perfectly consistent with a zealous at- 
“tachment to the particular denomination of which we are 
‘members. With our fellow Christians of every name, we 
“are ready to unite in spreading abroad the records of our 
‘common salvation; and, with the Apostle, we pray, that 
‘¢ srace may be with all who love our Lord Jesus Christ in 
“sincerity. But we turn with fond and peculiar regard to 
“ that Church in whose bosom we were nurtured, and in whose 
‘“‘ words our infant lips were taught to utter the accents of 
“prayer and praise. May peace be within her walls, and 
“ prosperity within her palaces; may her priests be clothed 
‘ with salvation, and her saints shout aloud for joy.”* Truly 
I was astonished. On an occasion when he was called to 
state the distinguishing, the most powerful and operative cause 
_ of attachment to the Church, the author of the report of the 
Bedford Prayer Book Society “turns with fond and peculiar 
<€ regard to the Church’’~-he remembers when he wasa little boy 
—because it is “‘the Church in whose bosom he was nurtured, 
‘and in whose words his infant lips were taught to utter the 
‘¢ accents of prayer and praise.” Very pretty indeed. 

In the expression of the opinion of the tendency of Bible So- 
cieties to diminish the attachment of Episcopalians to the dis- 
tinctive principles of their Church, Bishop Hobart made ne 


* Letter, p, 62. 


67 


allusion to any individuals. Nor could he have supposed that 
in every case, this tendency would operate. For he must 
know that there are Episcopalians connected with Bible So- 
cieties too firm in their principles to be thus affected. The 
remark was a general one; and is obviously founded on the 
importance of the principle, stated as so powerful in its 
operation by every profound observer of human nature, the 
spirit of the corps. Some individuals, no doubt, are de- 
termined in their attachment to a community, by an intimate 
knowledge of its principles. But the mass of mankind feel 
more than they reason—And hence the importance of keeping 
up what is styled, the distinctive spirit of every particular as- 
sociation. Amalgamations have a tendency to weaken this 
spirit. What is true in political associations, is eminently so 
in religious. And the tendency of religious amalgamations is 
to break down the distinguishing spirit of the component parts. 
The danger here is peculiar to Episcopalians. For they have 
every thing to lose, and nothing to gain. Non-Episcopalians 
acknowledge an Episcopal Ministry, but Episcopalians do not 
receive a Non-Episcopal Ministry without ordination.—Here 
then an indifference to distinguishing principles would operate 
altogether against Episcopalians. In like manner in public 
worship. Suppose Non-Episcopalians are willing to place 
extempore worship on the same footing with a Liturgy, and ad- 
mit both.—Episcopalians cannot do this consistently with 
their principles. Here again, indifference to peculiar princi- _ 
ples would operate altogether against Episcopalians. 

But still further—who that considers how greatly the spirit 
and character of the bulk of the members of every community 
are formed, gradually perhaps, but effectually, by what they 
hear and see; and how much is heard and seen in Bible So- 
cieties, of all denominations meeting precisely on the same 
footing, and of the unimportance of the tenets that divide them; 
can fail to perceive the tendency of these institutions to wea- 
ken the attachment of Episcopalians to their distinctive tenets? 
At least there is danger—and “ Lead us not into temptation’? 


68 


—is a wise prayer, in reference to principle as well as to con- 
duct.* 

Even admitting then that Bishop Hobart is in an error on 
this subject, and that his apprehensions are wholly unfounded 
—-still the error is on the safe side—the apprehensions guard 
what ought to be dear to every Churchman. It would be 
difficult to assign his conduct to any motive but honest zeal 
for the Church, however misguided; for he does not reap the 
harvest of popularity. It is a zeal, therefore, which one 
would think should receive the indulgence of a “ Churchman” 
—a “ fault” to which, ifhe must see it, and if he must expose 
it, a Churchman should be at least “a little kind,” particularly 
as even you are compelled to acknowledge that “his (Bishop 
Hobart’s) opposition to Bible Societies has been always free 
from offensive personalities,t and that “ he has even observed 


* The tendency here stated has been doubiless, in some measure, counteracted 
by the opposition which, from time to time, has been made. Episcopalians con- 
nected with Bible Societies, have been thus put upon their guard; and rendered 
perhaps mere tenacious of their peculiar principles, in order to show that the ten- 
dency imputed to those associations does not exist. It may exist, however, though 
its operation be thus counteracted. 

At the recent anniversary of the American Bible Society, one speaker de- 
nounces “ sectarion feelings’—that is, attachment to the principles of a particular 
sect—“ the pale of sectarian pretensions.’ The same speaker asserts, that 
those who oppose Bible Societies maintain that the “ Revelation of God to 
** man should be modified or restrained by human agency,” are guilty of attempts 
“to intercept the light of heaven from striking the earth” And this, too, in the 
very sentence in which he says that in advocating Bible Societies we should not 
“lose sight of that charity which is the brightest ornament of the Christian charac- 
‘ter.’ And these misrepresentations are published by the authority of the Mana- 
gers of the American Bible Society, who profess to circulate only the Bible. “No 
** Shibboleth of a sect,” says the Rev. Mr. Henshaw, of whom I would beg leave to 
inquire, what is the Shibboleth of the Episcopal sect? Bishop Hobart ought, I 
think, to feel himself honoured by the ailusions made to him by several of 
the speakers, and particularly the very pointed attempt to refute his opinionsin the 
very common way of misrepresenting them, by the Rev. James Milnor, the Foreign 
Seerctary, whose speech would not have had the “ salt that gave it savour,” had he 
omitted indirectly taimpute to his brethren who differ from him on this subject, “the 
“ assuming the province of mutilating the sacred volume.” And all this is published 
by the Managers of the American Bible Society, who, still it is said, never circulate 
* the glosses of men.” 


t Letter, p. 28. 


69 


« courtesyin his controversy.’’* Certainly even misguided 
zeal proceeding from such motives, and thus characterized, 
did not merit a letter characterized by the misREPRESENTA~ 
tions by which I think I have proved your letter to him 
abounds, and by the ungentlemanly and unchristian spirit and 
language, which, before I conclude, I think I shall show in 
many respects mark this address to him. 


I pass on to notice some of the most striking 


FALLACIES 


in the statements and reasonings of your Letter. 

And J first notice one, pervading indeed almost all the re- 
ports, and the speeches, and the communications of the Bi- 
ble Societies and their members, and which is certainly sanc- 
tioned by the address, in 1822, of the President of the Amie- 
rican Bible Society, is, that the success of these institutions is 
an evidence of their enjoying the special protection and favour 
of God. 

I must be permitted to express my humble opinion, dis- 
claiming all intention of offence to any individual, that this 
position contains the very essence of fanaticism—that it is 
a position which would impute to the infinitely wise, and 
good, and holy Raler of the universe, an approbation of all 
the means, however unlawful or improper, which have ob- 
tained success for any lawful or proper object—that it is the 
very sentiment under the wild rule of which the fanatic has 
prosecuted, by the most extravagant and unjustifiable means, 
his pious purpose, and even drenched himself in blood, for 
the glory of God. ‘To intimate that this position is so re- 
garded in its consequences by those who maintain it, would 
be indeed the height of arrogance and uncharitableness. But 
I must be permitted to view it in this light; and a higher con- 
sideration than opposition to Bible Societies prompts me to 
endeavour to expose it. For this abuse of the doctrine of 


* Letter, p. 39. 


70 


the Providence of God leads some to doubt or to deny his 
agency ia the government of the world, and others to sanc- 
tion, with the shield of his favour, their follies, their errors, 
and even their crimes. 

I must do you this jnstice to say, that you seem aware of 
the inevitable consequences of your position, and express 
yourself in respect to it, as I conceive, in obscure and con- 
tradictory terms. You refer (p. 40) to the following remarks 
of Bishop Hobart, in his address to the Convention :—“ The 
“¢ success of institutions which are erroneous in the principle 
‘“‘ on which they are founded, or in the measures which they 
‘“‘ adopt, cannot vindicate them; except on the maxim, that 
“© ¢the end justifies the means.’ Nor is this success to be 
« considered as evidence of the favour of Heaven; for then, 
“ divine sanction would be obtained for many heretical and 
“ schismatical sects, which, at various times, have obtained 
“great popularity, and corrupted and rent the Christian 
‘© Church.” 

On this you observe,—“ I cannot but regard this remark 
‘“¢ as intended to rebut the argument of Governor Jay, in his 
“ Jate address to the American Bible Society, that the pecu- 
‘‘ liar circumstances under which Bible Societies originated ; 
‘‘ the wonderful extension which has been given to them; the 
“‘ unanimity which conflicting sects have supported them; and 
“‘ the events which have occurred to facilitate the distribution 
“© of the Scriptures, all unite to induce the belief, that these 
*‘ institutions, together with the other means which are now 
“hastening the coming in of the Gentiles, are providential ; 
“‘ and under this persuasion he recommends to the opponents 
‘¢ of Bible Societies, the counsel of Gamaliel.” 

Without doubt every thing connected with Bible Societies 
is providential ; and so is every thing connected with Roman 
Catholic error and Mahometan fanaticism ; for every thing in 
the world, bad as well as good, is permitted and controlled 
by the holy Providence of God. But who would think of 
deducing hence an argument in favour of Roman Catholic 
error or Mahometan fanaticism? From so vague an assertion, 


71 
that the circumstances connected with Bible Societies are 
providential, surely the inference of Governor Jay (you, Sir, 
have introduced him upon this subject) is a nom sequitur, that 
they enjoy the special favour and protection of Heaven, and 
that those who oppose them are “ fighting against God.” 

But I think I hear you address me—What, Sir, do you 
mean to compare the distribution of the Bible with the pro- 
gress of Roman Catholic error and Mahometan fanaticism? 
By no means. God forbid. The distribution of the Bible is 
an object worthy of all praise. But there is an obvious and 
important distinction between the end and the means. The 
one may be correct; the other quite the contrary. And the 
question is, whether Bible Societies, as one of those means 
by which the Bible is distributed, enjoy the special favour 
and protection of Heaven, so that they who oppose them 
fight against God. If you say that the peculiar circumstances 
connected with Bible Societies are providential, that is, ac- 
cording to the obvious meaning of the word, under the go- 
vernment of God’s Providence, | answer—so are all other 
circumstances, bad as well as good. And if any argument be 
drawn in favour of Bible Societies, because the circumstances 
connected with them are providential, the same inference 
will apply to the “ circumstances” connected with Roman 
Catholic error and Mahometan fanaticism. 

You must, therefore, mean something more than the gene- 
ral term “ providential” indicates. And without doubt you 
do mean that the peculiar circumstances connected with Bible 
Societies prove that they are under the special favour and 
protection ef Heaven. Now, what are these peculiar circum- 
stances? You enumerate them in a passage which I have 
already quoted, and in another, which I will do you the justice 
to state at length. ‘ When we observe an institution estab- 
<“¢ ished in the midst of war and desolation, devoted solely to 
“‘ the glory of God, and the salvation of man: when its pro- 
“¢ priety and utility is so obvious, that the wise and good, the 
“6 excellent of the earth, however much they differ on other 
“points, lend it their unanimous sanction; when expiring 


72 


‘« saints rejoice that they have been permitted to Jabour in its 
“service ; when Christian nations, with the single exception 
“‘ of such as are involved in the gloom of papal ignorance and 
“ superstition ; as if animated by one heart and one mind, are 
“* yielding to it their treasures and their exertions ; and when, 
“ in consequence of this institution, the Gospel has free course 
“and is glorified, in a degree unparalleled since the days of 
“the Apostles: surely, Sir, we may be permitted to say, ‘ it 
‘is the Lord’s doing, and it is marvellous in our eyes,’ with- 
* out being classed with the most ignorant of fanatics.’’* 

Stripped of its verbiage and its declamation, the simple 
meaning of this passage is—that the success of the Bible So- 
ciety, its popularity, is an indication not merely of the Divine 
approbation, but most emphatically of its being “ the Lord’s 
“ doing.”? And yet, in the sentence immediately preceding 
this passage, you assert, ‘‘ No one, I believe, in the posses- 
“ sion of his faculties, ever contended that the mere success 
“‘ of an undertaking, of itself, indicated the Divine approba- 
* tion.” 

Now, Sir, what am I to think? Are you “ in the posses- 
sion of your faculties ?”” (I use your own language ;) or are 
they, on the subject of Bible Societies, which really seems to 
intoxicate wiser and stronger heads than yours, approaching 
to a state of dementation ? 

We can account for the success of Bible Societies without 
the special interposition of a present Deity. 


Nec Deus intersit, nisi dignus vindice nodus 
Inciderit— 


Their object is commendable—it is calculated to enlist the 
feelings in favour of associations to advance it prior to all ex- 
amination of their principles and tendency. Means were early 
employed to render them popular. The imposing apparatus 
of Auxiliary Societies, and of a great number of vice-pre- 
sidents and managers, &c. &c. was soon prepared. The 


* Letter, p. 18, 


73 


Tove of office in some, and a carelessness of declining it in 
ethers, operated in favour of these plans. Other considera- 
tions had their effect. It is unpleasant to decline pressing so- 
licitations—to withdraw one’s name when it is brought for- 
ward—to oppose oneself to popular impulse, to the fashion of 
the day—and toencounter misrepresentation and denunciation. 
Kings and noblemen (whose patronage you, though doubtless a 
good republican, seem very fond of blazoning forth in lengthened 
columns) are not very much in the habit, it is to be feared, of 
inquiring either as to the principles or the tendency of reli- 
gious associations, except so far as personal ambition, or po- 
litical consequence, may be affected by them—and Bible So- 
cieties were engines for this purpose not to be neglected.* 
The powerful machinery of Bible anniversaries was soon set in 
motion. On these occasions every gratification is afforded to 
personal vanity; by a system of mutual compliment, each 
can exalt the other; speeches can be made, and printed, and 
panegyrized, and together with the names of those who moved, 
and those who seconded resolutions, on those memorable oc- 
casions recorded in archives ere perennius. Alas, poor human 
nature! what an alloy tarnishes thy best purposes! what un- 
dignified means must often be resorted to, in order to rouse, 
thy feelings even in a good cause! 

The subject of the agency of the Providence of Gad in hu- 
man affairs, is to be treated with the most reverential caution, 


* It is a little singular, that the British Ministry, who are represented as being 
so exceedingly zealous for Bible Societies, almost invariably promote those Clergy in 
the Church who are not in favour of these societies. Dr. Tomline, who, the 
** Churchman” asserts, while Bishop of Lincoln, delivered so violent a Charge 
against Bible Societies that he was afraid or ashamed to print it, has been lately 
translated to the very rich see of Winchester. Dr.Want, particularly odious to the 
purty in the Church of England who support Bible Societies, was lately made Bishop 
of Killaloe and Kilfenora, and has more recently been advanced to the valuable see of 
Down and Connor. And about the very time that Lord Liverpool was delivering 
a speech in favour of Bible Societies, Dr. Beresford, the Archbishop of Dublin, 
seceded from the Hibernia Bible Society, and was soon after translated to the Arch- 
bishopric of Armagh, the metropolitan see of Ireland. And we have not heard of 
the zeal of his distinguished successor, Dr. Magee, in the see of Dublin, in fayour of 
Bible Societies. Other cases might be stated- 


K 


td | 

lest we exposé it to the scoff of the infidel, or the abuse of the 
fanatic. “The Lord reigneth—let the righteous be glad !"? 
All things, evil as well as good, are either immediately direct- 
ed, or permitted and controlled by his particular Providence. 
And they are all made to subserve infinitely wise and good 
purposes. Even the wrath of man is made to praise him who 
overrules it for his own glory, always connected with the 
happiness of his creatures. The righteous enjoy the peculiar 
favour and protection of their Father in heaven; and they 
rejoice in the assurance, that all things which happen to them, 
directed, or permitted and controlled by him, shall work to- 
gether for their good. But to infer the special favour and 
protection of Heaven on any particular private or public religi- 
ous measure on account of the success attending it, would be 
prestimptuous, and would lead to the sanelioning of error and 
of crime. é 

With respect to Bible Societies, the truth on this point lies 
, within a small compass. Every thing relating to them is, 
without doubt, directed, or permitted and controlled by the 
Sovereign of all, and will be overruled by him for good pur- 
poses. The object is good, but as to the means there is a dif- 
ference of opinion. Among those who doubt, to say the least, 
the propriety of these means, are surely some wise and good 
men. Heaven does not interfere by a miracle to decide thie 
question ; there is no infallible tribunal to which to appeal; 
and to attempt to decide it by triumphantly alleging the suc- 
cess of these institutions, is to have recourse toa principle as 
fallacious as it is dangerous. If you appeal to the good which 
they do, beware how you justify the means by the end. And, 
still the question occurs—Could not this good be effected by 
other means not liable to the same objections? ‘This is a 
question which it will be of some importance to examine, and 
leads me to point out, 

. 2. Another ratiacy pervades your Letter, as to the good 
effected by Bible Societies; for you think that the same 
good could not be effected by any other means; you speak of 
them ‘“ as the onLY INSTRUMENTS whereby the distribution of 


rey 

the oracles of truth can be effected.” When the imagira- 
tion and the feelings take the reins from the judgment, there: 
is no extravagance or absurdity into which the partizan of a 
cause will not be hurried. Bible Societies the only instruments 
whereby the distribution of the oracles of truth can be effected ! 
My dear Sir, permit me to ask, is it traly your sober opinion 
that no means existed for the distribution of the 2ible, until 
the Bible Society arose in 1804? and that, previously to that 
period, no Bibles were circulated? By what means had the: 
Bible been previously distributed among the numerous nations’ 
which enjoyed it? That Bible Societies have greatly in- 
ereased the circulation of the Bible, and extended it to 
many previously destitute of it, will be acknowledged: but 
that they are the only means by which it can be distr- 
buted, is an assertion, an equal to which in absurdity and ex- 
travagance would in vain be sought for among the many ex- 
travagant.and absurd declarations that have been made con- 
cerning them by their inflamed panegyrists.t 


* Letter,’ p: 47. 

+ “ The estimate of the didvantases derived to the cause of Christianity has been 
“taken, not from any account of converts to the true faith really made, or congre- 
** gations of sound professing Christians actually set on foot, (the old and approved 
** method of conveying intelligence of this nature, and the only one by which this 
**important point can be satisfactorily ascertained,) but from the mere insulated 
* circumstance of the quantity of = dispersed.” —Daubeny’s Discourse in 
the Abbey Church in Bath. + -- ~ 

The British and Foreign Bible Society voted 5000/. sterling to Dr. Middleton, the 
late Bishop of Calcutta, to aid in the translation of the Scriptures into the languages 
of the East. The following letter, addressed to the President of the Society, shows 

~ that he did not approve of the haste with which this work is prosecuted: his plans 
were more sober and cautions. P ; 
«© My Lord, ** Colombo, May 15, 1821. 

‘© T have been hononred with your Lordship’s letter of the 20th of July, 1820, 
*¢ which has been sent after me on my visitation, enclosing a vote of the British 
* and Foreign Bible Society of the sum of 5000/. to be appropriated to that de- 
partment of labour in the Mission College, near Calcutta, which relates to ver~ 
sions of the Holy Scriptures in the native languages of India, and to be drawn 
<* for asI may require it. I beg leave to acknowledge the distinguished liberality 
«of this proceeding; at the same time it may be proper to apprise your Lordship, 
«© that a considerable period may yet elapse before the College will be enabled to 
« avail itself of the Committee’s grant: the building, though in progress, wi!l not 
probably be completed till the next year is far advanced; and the werk of irans- 


76 


The Society in England for Propagating the Gospel in Fo- 
reign Parts, has existed for more than a century; and the 
Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, for nearly that 
period : and by both these institutions Bibles were distributed 
to a great amount, and in our own country, from its first settle~ 
ment. But it was necessary, you will say, to enlarge the ex- 
tent of distribution. And could not this have been done by in- 
creasing the resources of those societies, or by the establish. 
ment of new ones by Churchmen and dissenters separately, to 
which the objections would not apply that exist in the prin- 
ciple and to the tendency of Bible Societies?* The New- 


"© lation of the Holy Scriptures at least, will. not, I conceive, be undertaken until 
“€ the persons connected with the establishment shall have obtained an intimate 
*€ acquaintance with some of the native languages, and even then will not pro- 
S* ceed with very great rapidity. ; 
* I would further be permitted to thank your Lordship for the obliging manner 
‘€ in which your Lordship has done me the benour to make the communication, 
« and for the good wishes which attend it. 
«I have the honour, my Lord, to be, 
“ With the highest respect, 
‘* Your Lordship’s most obedient servant, * 
CSigned_) “ 7. F. CALCUTTA.” 


* <¢ What isa Churchman? A true Churchman is a Christian, deeply convinced 
© of the truth of his own confession, and consistently desirous of propagating Chris- 
“ tianity in that which he conceives to be its purest form. The conscientious Dis- 
** senter acts on a similar persuasion. God must judge between us, but mezther of* 
** us can honestly compromise a single principle. Neither party indistinctly talks, 
** about ‘ God’s truth in its simplicity’ without ‘ man’s note or human comment ;’ but 
“© each goes on iuculcating his own mode of faith, which he believes to be the most 
* consonant with revealed truth. In so doing, the Churchman propagates a tried, 
“* a weighed opinion: the honest Dissenter, must esteem him for his consistency, 
“* however he may question the soundness of his egnelusions ;—the Churchman 
“ imposes nothing—he authoritatively prohibits nothing. Jn giving the benefit of 
“* judgment of the Church he does not dictate with assumed infallibility ; he does 
** but advise,—the benefit of the Church’s judgment he does, however, commu- 
** nicate; and this is better than to leave men unassisted to their own—infinitely 
“ better than to cajole them into a false persuasion of a right of private judgment 
** beyond their competency of judging, or to bid them attend to the whispers of a 
** private spirit of inspiration, of which no promise has been given, and no proof 
*€ can be afforded; he assumes but that authority and that influence which every 
S¢ father exercises over his child, and with which God has invested the wise for the 
“ benefit of the simple. This is to follow nature, as well as Scripture—#nature, 
« which is wisdom without reflection, and above it;’ this is to fall in with the Py 


77 


York Bible and Common Prayer Book Society was establish- 
ed before the organization of any Bible Society in this state ; 
and by this institution and similar ones, or by Societies 
for Promoting Christian Knowledge, could not Episcopalians 
have distributed the Bible, and other denominations have 
effected the same object in their own way? Do you say that 
the Bible would not thus be as effectually distributed, for 
the want of ‘ concentrated effort??? Why so? Is not the 
Gospel successfully propagated by separate Missionary insti- 
tutions, founded and conducted by those denominations who 
agree in doctrine, ministry, and worship? And what should 
prevent the Bible from being effectually distributed by insti- 
tutions organized in a similar mode? ‘The objection, as far 
as respects the want of concentrated effort, applies to the sepa- 
rate Missionary institutions, as well as to separate societies 
for the distribution of the Bible; and the argument, in this 
respect, in favour of the union of all Christians in Bible Socie- 
ties, would prove the propriety of the same union in Mission- 
ary establishments. Had then this mode of distinct societies 
been pursued in what is called the “ Bible cause,” which has 
long been successfully pursued in “ the Missionary cause,” 
we should then have seen no separation in the principle of 
these institutions, of the Church of God from the Word of 
God; every distinct society would have been conducted un- 
der the authority of its own Church, the doctrine, ministry, 
and ordinances of which would have been thus recognised. 
And then Episcopalians here, and in England, would have 
been united. And then also, instead of the most extraordi- 
nary spectacle—certainly not very edifying—of a large so- 
ciety of Christians established for the distribution of the Bible, 
meeting in a large room on their great anniversary, without 
one public and joint supplication to the Divine Author of this 
sacred volume for his blessing on their endeavours to extend 


s pointed course of things; but this is also to quit the connexion and to condemn 
“¢ the practice, and to act counter to the adscititious principles of Bible Societies 
* in both countries.”—-Jackson’s Reasons for withdrawing from the Hibernian 
Bible Society, p. 142. 


. 78 


jt, or one accent of praise to him for the success which may 
have crowned their labours—we should have seen them im 
the temples of the Most High, supplicating his favour on their 
plans: for diffusing his word, and praising his name for the 
good which they may have been instrumental in doing. But 
this would have been an old fashioned and unostentatious way 
of doing good; and if this be the age of Bibles, it is also the 
age of religious novelties, and, let me add, of religious ostenta- 
ti0me . 

Admitting then the magnificent and stupendous good whick 
has resulted from Bible Societies ; before your argument on 
this ground would avail in their favour, you ought to prove, 
that the same good could not have been produced in other 
modes entirely unobjectionable. 

But, Sir, had I the leisure, and did I think it essential to the 
object of this letter, I presume to think that I could prove that 
this good has been much exaggerated—that wndue stress is 
laid on the mere distribution of the Bible—that a portion of 
the immense resources now applied to this object, might be 
more profitably devoted to Missionary purposes, and to 
those of religious instruction, great as may be the attention 
which these objects confessedly receive. As is observed ina 
speech delivered at the recent anniversary of the American 
Bible Society, by a Reverend Gentleman—after noticing the 
objection—The Bible, however disseminated, would “never - 
“ convert the world. The preaching of the Gospel, and not 
_ © the spreading of the Bibles, was the means divinely appointed 
“‘ for this great end’’—he observes—“ J grant the truth of 
“ the position.””* I thank “ the Rev. Mr. Henshaw, from the 
‘* Episcopal Church at Baltimore,”’ for his manliness in de- 
livering alittle sober truth at a Bible anniversary, for all the 
truth delivered on such occasions is certainly not sober. 

Another Reverend Speaker, (‘the Rev. Dr. Woodhull, of 


* Before this sheet was struck off by the printer, the proceedings of the Ame- 
rican Bible Society, at their late anniversary, with the speeches, &c. were pub> 
’ lished in the New-York Spectator, from whieh the extracts are taken: 


79 

% New-Jersey”) called on his audience to “ look back upon 

“ ages past, and contrast the few copies of the sacred volume 

“ with the millions that are now dispersing in every direc- 

 tion”’—And yet, during some of those ages, the three first 
centuries after Christ, the blessed system, of which he was the 
Author, was spread throughout the known world, and subsisted 
m a purity and power, to which Christians in the present day 

“ look back”? as to that golden age, which they hope and 
pray will reillumine and reinvigorate the Church-of Christ. 

How was the Gospel then spread; how was it then pre- 

served in unparalleled purity and power? By the distribu- - 
tion of the Bible without note or comment? To take a 

phrase from a smooth, pretty, and pathetic speech of one of 
the speakers, did “no gloss, no comment accompany the 

% gift” of the sacred word? Let me remind him of the de- 

clarations of his colleagues—but “few copies existed of the 

* sacred volume’?—and those were in manuscript—“ the 

“ preaching of the word is the divinely appointed mean for con- 

% verting the world.”? Yes--The Gospel, in the golden age 

of its purity, was propagated and maintained, under the 

power of its divine Author, by his divinely constituted mean, 

the preaching of the word, the reading and expounding of it 

by his authorized ministry, ‘ the gloss,” the ‘“* note and com- 

* ment” of the “ Priest.”? I hope, as I have sheltered myself 

under the authority of speakers at the anniversary of the Ame- 

rican Bible Society, I shall not be accused of opposing the dis- 

tribution of the Bible. 

3. But, it is a FaLLAcy, that Bible Societies distribute the 
Bible without “ note or comment.” 

They are not in their operations, as they profess to be in 
their design, Societies for the distribution of the Bible only. 
They distribute what may be called religious tracts, to an im- 
mense amount. Do not be startled—I meaneven so. And 
the tracts which they distribute, are not tracts drawn up or 
carefully selected by learned Divines, or other grave and ju- 
dicious persons, but the /etters, and the speeches, and the vari- 
ous communications, and reports, and addresses, containing 


80 

more or less of religious matter, of all the various agents and 
speakers who in the multiplied ramifications of Bible Societies, 
conduct its concerns, or panegyrize its labours.—These issue, 
in vast numbers annually, monthly, weekly, under the authority 
and at the expense of Bible Societies; and are sent with Bibles 
throughout the extensive scene of Bible Society operations. 
And they contain not only a great deal of religious matter of 
a general tenor, but particular applications and expositions of 
Scripture—notes and comments upon certain passages. 
The number of sheets of this letter, which the printer has 
struck off, reminds me that I am extending it to an immoderate 
length, or 1 could fully prove this by a recurrence to the do- 
cuments referred to, had J also the leisure to hunt them up. 
Happily, however, I have one illustration at hand—The first 
Reverend Speaker who addressed the American Bible Society 
at its last anniversary, gave the following exposition of a pas- 
sage in the Book of the ‘“‘ Revelations of St. John?”— 

“ It has been supposed by some, that the two testaments 
‘*¢ which make up the Bible, are the two witnesses mentioned 
‘in the Apocalypse, in that well known passage, which has 
“ so greatly attracted the attention of the Christian world. It 
‘must be admitted, that in the language of the Scripture, 
‘“‘ these testaments are every where spoken of as witnessing 
*« God’s truth—they are celebrated in the 119th Psalm, under 
* the name of testtmonies—the righteousness of God is said to 
* be witnessed by the law and the prophets—Christ said of 
“ them, these are they which testify of me: and when he sent 
“‘ abroad his Apostles, who wrote the New Testament, it was 
“ that they might be his witnesses to the end of the earth. But 
‘¢ did these two testaments ever, according to the terms of the - 
“ oracle, prophesy in sackcloth? Look back, sir, to the dark 
“‘ ages of Popery, when, even of the clergy that ought to have 
“ taught the Scriptures, many could not so much as read them 3. 
‘“* when the people were expressly forbidden to look into the 
“« Bible: and see how long this night of ignorance and error 
continued. Was not this prophesying in sackcloth? But it 
“is further said, ‘ that war was to be made with these wit- 


81 

% nesses, and they were to be slain?’ And, Sir, need we look 
* farther than the close of the last century, to find a regularly 
* concerted scheme, of powerful, ingenious, persevering and 
“ malignant opposition, to the whole system of revealed truth? 
“ Led on by Voltaire, a host of infidels attacked the Bible: 
“ plans, means, exertions, lies, boastings, blasphemies, re- 
* sounded from one end of Europe to the other. Voltaire 
“ vaunted, that with one hand he would pull down what it had 
“ taken the whole lives of the twelve Apostles to build up. 
* The French convention proclaimed Jesus Christ to be an 
“impostor, the Bible a forgery, and death an eternal sleep : 
“ and the two testaments were tied to the tail of an ass, and 
“ after being dragged through the streets of Paris, were pub- 
“ licly burnt to ashes, amidst the shouts of the surrounding 
“ multitude. The prophecy adds, that after three days anda 
_ “half, those slain witnesses were to revive and to ascend up 
“to heaven. Now, Sir, the decree which destroyed the Bible 
“ was dated in August, 1792; and in March, 1796, just three 
“ years and a half afterwards, the decree was dated, which 
“ restored its credit, and permitted it again to be used in di- 
*‘ vine service. Almost immediately afterwards we find the 
“ origin of the British and Foreign Bible Society : you have 
*‘ witnessed its progress in the 19 years that have followed ; 
“ you have seen the host of similar institutions which have 
“ risen around it; nay, Sir, you have heard the report of this 
‘¢ day; and who can deny, that these revived witnesses for 
“6 God have, as it were, ascended up into heaven ?” 

Now, Sir, I say nothing as to the soundness of this “ note 
*¢ and comment”’ upon the sacred text, or of its modesty as it 
respects the Bible Society. But according to custom, I con- 
clude this speech is to be published with the others, at the ex- 
pense and by the authority of the Bible Society. The Editor 
of the paper, in which these speeches were published, who 
appears to have acted as the Reporter of the Society, and 
who has caught most marvellously the Bible Society infection; 
so that he rises almost to inspiration; his pen, if not his eye, 

L 


82 


“in fine phrenzy”* moving, says explicitly, in reference to 
the manuscript of a certain speech, that “the Managers [of 
“the American Bible Society,] reserve this, with the other 
“© speeches exclusively for the pamphlet which they will shortly 
“ nublish.’’t 

The fact as to the distribution, by Bible Societies, to a 
great amount, of pamphlets and papers, containing religious 
matter, and applications and expositions of Scripture, is un- 
doubted; and yet, we are told, they circulate the Bible only, 
and the Bible without “ note or comment.” “The moment 
“it should be discovered that any gloss or comment accom- 
“ panied the gift, that moment would give the signal for the 
“utter ruin of the Society.”’{ Alas, how easily mankind are 
led into delusion, and how pertinaciously they cling to it! The 
note or comment is distributed by Bible Societies to those to 
whom they give the Bible, but it is not bound up with the Bible 
—it is therefore not a note or comment!—and that terrible 
event, “the utter ruin of the Society” does not ensue. 

I do not undertake to say, that the Bible Societies are 
wrong in this measure, in publishing and distributing these 
documents. But I do say, that they do not, as they profess, 
distribute the Bible on/y—the Bible without note or comment.§ 


From the fallacies in your pamphlet I Linas on to notice 
cursorily the 


RHAPSODY AND OSTENTATION | 


which appear conspicuous in almost every page. Bishop 
Hobart had published an address, in which he very calmly, 

* Speaking of this “ glorious institution,” he asks, ‘‘ Who that loves his ¢oun- 
“ try, can contemplate such an institution in the midst of it, and not exclaim, 
‘*-with the Roman Patriot—Esto perpetua.”” The a patriot is the celebrated 
Venetian Padre Paolo. 

¢ Since the above was written, I have seen numbers 23 and 24 of the monthiy 
publication of the American Bible Society, containing the speeches. 

+ Rev. Dr. Milnor. 

§ The Bible Society circulate expositions of the Bible, by the Clergy, whom they 


employs snd pay as agents, who, under the influence of their name, preach and ex- 
pound the Scriptures. 


&3 


and, by your confession, “ courteously,” stated his objections 
to Bible Societies, and urged Episcopalians to direct their 
efforts to the propagation of the Gospel by the institutions of 
their own Church. This you represent as ‘* renewing hosti- 
“ lities” against the American Bible Society. ‘“ You have 
“ engaged,” is your language to him, “in a warfare, in which 
‘the cause of the Bible has been always crowned with vic- 
*¢ tory, and in which the mortification of defeat has ever been 
‘“‘imbittered by the conviction, that the power of the victor 
‘“‘ has been confirmed and extended by the very endeavour to 
‘« shake it.” And you advance most fearlessly to the contest. 
* In such a warfare no friend of the society can for a moment 
“ hesitate to engage, through apprehension of the issue—nay, 
“the very stripling whose youthful limbs refuse the burden 
“‘ of the coat of mail, and the sword of the warrior, may 
‘¢ fearlessly enter the field, trusting alone to that God in whose 
“‘ cause he combats; and with no armour but truth, and no 
“ weapon but.common sense, he will most assuredly vanquish 
‘6 the proudest Goliath that may dare him to the fight.””* 

In another very fine, and poetical, and pathetic passage, 
you point out the hopeless destitution of those whose ‘ home is 
on the deep;’ and the conclusion of your rhapsody is, that 
Bishop Hobart opposed the Mariner’s Church.t But when 
you turn your view fora moment to the “ mighty triumphs 
‘* and stupendous labours,” and “ imposing grandeur and mag- 
“ nificence” of the American Bible Society, your imagina- 
tion indeed takes wings, and in her soaring flight glances from 
the “ British Isles”? to the ‘* Continent,” from ‘‘ Iceland’? to 
** Malta,” from ‘“ Asia’? to “ Africa;” from “ one extremity 
* of Hindoostan to the other, from Bombay to Calcutta, from 
*¢ Madras to Columbo, from New-Holland to Amboyna,”’ from 
the «‘ Cape of Good-Hope’’ to “ Sierra Leone, Caledon, 
* Mauritius, and Bourbon; from “ Africa” to “ North- 
‘*¢ America,” “ from Hudson’s Bay to the Gulf of Mexico, 
“and from the Missouri to the Atlantic.”{ And were you 


* Letter, p. 3. + Letter, p. 3, 4. + Letter, p. 48, 49° 


84 


not afraid that by this time she would have been out of breath? 
No; you knew too well her spirit and her lofty daring. Again 
she soars with renewed strength, and she sees Bishop Hobart, 
in his opposition to the American Bible Society, “ exerting 
“his talénts and influence to lock up this ‘ flood-gate of 
‘“ merey,’ to quench this ‘ sun which has arisen, unexpectedly 
“and gloriously, to illuminc the dark horizon of a fallen 
“ world.?”* What a terrible man, to attempt to lock up a 
flcod-gate, to quench a sun! And he is as foolish and impious as 
terrible—for he endeavours, “ with his newspaper publications, 
“ and his pastoral letters, and his addresses, and his Conven- 
“ tion charges, to stem that pure river of the water of life, 
“ proceeding out of the throne of God and the Lamb, which 
“is now refreshing and fertilizing the waste places of the 
“earth, and causing the wilderness to rejoice and blossom as 
“ the rose.” t 
Truly, Sir, Ido not know whether your imagination has 
lately visited the ‘‘ spot where the apostle of the Gentiles 
“‘ once preached to his polished and philosophic hearers, their 
“ unknown God,’’t and quickened her fervours at the foun- 
tain at Helicon. But she certainly has given you the slip, and 
been dabbling in streams not quite so c’assical—the reports 
and the speeches, &c. of Bible Societies. And to convince 
you that I do not slander her, Imust request you to do me the 
‘justice to accompany me while we glance at a few passages 
in these valuable documents. 
“‘ In tracing the progress of this wonderful society, we are 
“ irresistibly led to ascribe the whole to the mighty power of 
‘* God, for who can hear of these signs and wonders of the 
“ time, without exclaiming, T'his 1s the finger of God; this 
“ts the working of that Spirit who worketh all, and in ail.” 
Hibernian Society’s address, 14th Report, p. 54. ‘ And in 
“the account of a recent anniversary, after much hesitancy 
‘as to which of the speakers, lay or clerical, noble or com- 
* moner, the meed of sacred eloquence was due, and after 


* Letter, p. 50. t Letter, p. 78, + Letter, p. 48. 


85 

“ an acknowledgment ‘ that it was impossible, in a brief no- 
“‘ tice, to convey an adequate idea of the delightful and so- 
“‘lemn feeling elicited by the appropriate and eloquent ad- 
‘‘ dresses of the different speakers.’* It was at last decid- 
“© ed, ‘ that the finer feelings of the assembly had been touched 
“in no common degree by the Rev. Lewis Way; and such 
“ indeed was the impression made by this annual festival, that 
“‘ few, ifany, could leave the room without gratefully exclaim- 
“ing, ‘what hath God wrought!’ 14th Report, p. 91, and 
“18th Monthly Extract.’— The language of grateful ac- 
“ knowledgment and heartfelt joy,’ called forth-by the Bible, 
‘ distributed through its liberality, ‘ is echoed from the Cas- 
* pian to the Mississipi, and from the recesses of Iceland to 
“the extremities of New-Holland.’? 13th Rep. Hib. Bible 
“ Soc. p. 30. See also Mr. C. Grant's Speech, ib. p.55. ‘It 
‘‘ embraces in its wide domain all Christian sects, and the 
“‘ most considerable personages of the state, the men most 
*¢ distinguished for rank, talent, and character.’ 14th Rep. 
 p, 71.—This, however, is flat, compared with the follow- 
‘ing extract. The one ‘ voice, and the one wish, which it 
‘‘ has raised for the Bible, and which it has now to satisfy, is 
s¢ heard from the recesses of the Continent, and from the Isles 
“‘ of the Sea. It is borne on the bosom of the waves from the 
“‘ Western Isles, skirts the shores of the Western Continent, 
6 re-echoes through the valleys, trembles along the cliffs, and 
“ thunders through the continent of the Eastern World.’ 10th 
* Rep. of Philadelphia Bible Society.”f 


* “ The apotheosis of Mr. Grant, already on record, deserves to be kept in con- 
 tinual remembrance. ‘Theenraptured Heathens exclaimed, The Gods are come 
*¢down to usin the likeness of men’—‘ To me,’ says Mr. Owen, ‘ the terms of 
s¢ the statement require to be inverted, in order to suit the circumstances of the 
© case. I saw inthe speaker a mortal like myself. To my view he seemed ¢o 
have wrapped himself in the skirts of that garment with which the Father of 
“ light is covered, and while he appeared to reflect a lustre borrowed from the 
§€ Divinity itself, methinks I could have found in my heart to exclaim, Men are 
§€ come among us in the likeness of God.’—Owen’s Speech.” 

T This extract is taken from an able pamphlet entitled ‘* Reasons for withdrawing 
‘ from the Hibernia BibleSociety, &c. By James Edward Jackson,” published about 
the time that the present Metropolitan of Ireland withdrew from that Society. 


86 
What say the speeches at the last anniversary of the Ame- 
rican Bible Society, as reported in the New-York Spectator? 
*‘ Shall we compare it to the morning star, leading on the 
** glorious dawn of a millennial day? or to the sun itself, en- 
“ lightning, warming, and animatinga world? In the natural 
** world, indeed, two suns cannot be admitted in the firma- 


‘* ment: but in the Christian heavens, we should rejoice to 
“‘ behold two hundred such.” 


“ It was natural for his thoughts to revert to that day, when 
“the Apostles of the risen Saviour were gathered with one 
“accord in one place ; when suddenly the Holy Spirit came 
** down like a mighty rushing wind, and its lambent flame sat 
*: upon the head of each of them.—We indeed do not expect 
‘*‘ the rushing sound or the lambent flame; but we do hope 
that that same Holy Spirit has again descended, and with 
“ purposes like to those which produced his first blessed ad- 
*“‘ vent; he has come in answer to the prayer of his people ; 
“‘ and our assembly on this occasion is, we trust, one of the 
“¢ evidences, as well as of the fruits of his coming.—We may 
“ not, but our successors will continue to carry on the building 
“ of this temple, till the last stone shall be brought forth with 
«‘ shoutings of ‘ Grace, grace unto it.” From the elevation of 
“ such a scene as this, we may stand like Moses upon Pisgah, 
“‘ and look down the vista of coming years, and seeing, though 
“ at a distance, that good land, we may restin hope. Though 
“ the clods of the valley must soon press heavy on our bosoms, 
“ posterity will carry forward this cause till it has filled, sub- 
“‘ dued, and blessed the earth. Give then, Sir, your report 
«to the world—send it forth, Sir. The man who can resist 
“ the evidence it contains, may resist the lightning and the 
“ thunder.” 


“¢ Sir, when the plan of this institution was first proposed, I 
“¢ was one of those who doubted, whether its great object, on 
“account of our extended territory, could not better be ef- 
“ fected by local institutions in different sections of the United 


87 
‘¢ States ; but, Sir, when J saw in the convention which met to 
“¢ form the Society, all denominations acting with one soul, all 
‘¢ party feelings absorbed in one common interest, and Chris- 
‘“‘ tian benevolence wrought up to its highest tone of feeling 
“ and action, I thought 1 beheld—and facts have since con- 
* yinced me that I was not mistaken—the finger of God.” 


‘“¢ Here all meet and erect an altar to concord: Joseph’s 
“¢ party-coloured coat is exchanged for Christ’s seamless gar- 
‘ment. To sucha cause opposition is vain, and the mightiest 
“ efforts of its foes will be but like those of the fabled giants, 
‘“‘ who heaped Pelion upon Ossa, but strove in vain to scale 
“‘ the walls, or to resist the thunder of heaven.’’. 


‘“< He had not seen it since until now, and how great, how 
*¢ glorious was the contrast! Then this great institution was 
“ just in being—it was a child—the child of much solicitude 
“ and of many prayers: many of its most affectionate friends 
“ trembled for its safety—many, not its friends, predicted its 
“ early dissolution: of all who beheld it, none could antici- 
* pate its rapid growth, its early maturity. Now, it is no 
*‘ more an infant, just born and surrounded with dangers—it 
‘¢ is a mother; and we behold it surrounded with a numerous 
“‘ progeny. ‘Then it was a feeble and delicate plant—now it 
‘¢ is a great tree—its branches spread from the ocean to the 
«© mountains ; and the inhabitants of the north and of the south 
“ come and sit down with joy beneath its shade.—The demon 
‘¢ of sectarian bigotry shrinks away from the spectacle-” 


“‘ | grant indeed that the clanking of the chain in which the 
“ Prince of the Pit held the nations, and by which he thought 
“‘ to drag a captive world to hell, was dreadful to hear : but, 
“¢ Sir, we are met to-day to try if we cannot weld a few links 
“ of that chain which is to bind him for a thousand years,—I 
“ follow the Divine impulse in its course round the globe, and 
« ] hail the victor upon the hill, while enthusiasm is yet in the 
* valley, panting far bebind.—-It was at the outset impossible 


88 

“ even to conceive the majesty, the magnificence of the Bible 
“cause: nobody did conceive it. But it has already ad- 
‘¢ vanced, till we stand upon an eminence, from which we may 
“ look down the vista of coming years, to that green hallowed 
‘spot, where all opposition shall be hushed, and all contest 
“ sink into peaceful repose.—Before I sit down, I cannot re- 
“ frain from noticing with pleasure, the respectful attention 
‘¢ given to the business of this day, by so large a concourse of 
“ ladies. Sir, in that section of our country where | reside, 
“ the females have come forward in their united capacity as a 
“‘ sex, to promote and advance the cause of Christianity. And 
“‘ oh, Sir, if there be any transporting spectacle upon the earth, 
‘it is the sanctification at once of mind, and loveliness, and 
“‘ beauty ; it is to behold such a combination of them, all ar- 
‘“ rayed in that great cause which divides the world. If beauty 
‘“‘ ever has resistless power, it is when its eye looks upward 
‘“‘ toward heaven through the tears of repentance.” 

On what occasion were these speeches delivered? “ We 
“have never witnessed,” says the editor who has reported 
them, “a more animating anniversary of this glorious institu- 
‘ tion, nor has its hold upon the public mind ever more con- 
“‘ spicuously appeared than on the present occasion. Long 
“‘ may it continue to flourish, the honour, the ornament, and 
“ the safeguard of our land. - Who that loves his country can 
‘“* contemplate such an institution in the midst of it, and not 
“exclaim with the Roman patriot, Esto perpetua.” 


Now if a stranger to Bible Societies and to Christianity 
were to witness the parade which annually takes place at their 
anniversary meetings, the long note of preparation, the beat- 
ing up for attendants from all quarters of the union, the reso- 
lutions after resolutions of thanks, thanks, thanks ; the speak- 
ers adulating Bible Societies, adulating each other, adulating 
almost every body but their unfortunate brethren the members 
of Bible and Common Prayer Book Societies—witnessing this 
machinery of parade, this flood of adulation, annually offer- 


89 


éd, would he believe that those engaged in it were the disci- 
ples of a humble and unostentatious Master, the professors of 
a religion which while it commands us as to our good actions, 
to “ let our light shine before men,” enjoins us as to profes- 
sions or parade, not to “ let our right hand know what our 
Jeft hand doéth ;’—and would he believe that these systems 
of display and adulation, not exceeded by any of the institu- 
tions of the “ children of this world,” were not only counte- 
- nanced, but actively engaged in, by the sainted “ Buchanan, 
“ and Boudinot, and Owen and others;’’ and by the living Wil- 
berforce and others, who carry so far the principle of the sole 
love of God, that they discard from every act of Christian duty 
as vitiating its very core, the least regard to fame. 

On this subject I feel inexpressible delicacy ; and cautious 
as I should be in estimating my own motives, if I do know 
them, I am influenced in these remarks by the sober, and so- 
lemn, and solicitous conviction, that this system of parade and 
flattery—this substitution of the base alloy of human fame for 
the pure gold of Christian benevolence—has a silent, but 
powerful and most vitiating effect on the religious taste and 
feelings of the community, not to be overbalanced by the in- 
creased popularity which it may give to any institution, how- 
ever commendable. It is not so regarded by many of the parti- 
cipants in it, whose motives, I am satisfied, are as pure as they 
are disinterested. But I have eyes, and must see—reason, and 
must judge. All I can say is, so it seems to me, so I think con- 
cerning it—zaleat, quantum valere potest. With the character 
of the individual who presided on this last anniversary of the 
American Bible Society, is associated all that is elevated and 
‘pure in piety, and benevolent, and meek, and kind in Christian 
morals: and over his virtues humility and modesty shed their 
mellow yet brilliant charm. Panegyric indeed was there justly 
applied; but the parade of that day I cannot conceive was 
agreeable either to his judgment, or his taste, or his feelings.* 


* In some few instances this mode has been pursued in institutions connected with 
the Protestant Episcopal Church in this diocese ; but it is due tq Bishop Hobart to 


M 


30 


INTOLERANCE. 


This indeed characterizes the language of others besides 
yourself towards those of their brethren who oppose Bible 
Societies. The intolerance which would raise the arm of 
persecution against them cannot now be indulged. But there 
is an intolerance as vindictive and as injurious, which assails 
individuals with such misrepresentations, and applies to thent 
such epithets, as are calculated to expose their motives to the 
severest censure, and to bring-their characters into disrepute. 
Iam weary of going through the pages of your letter, and F 
think on this point | may be’spared the disgusting task. In 
another part of this address to you, I shall have occasion to 
present the style in which you speak of Bishop Hobart as cal- 
culated to affect most injuriously his character and his motives.’ 
But the misrepresentations which you have heaped upon him, 
and which I have exposed, would alone prove the iotolerance 
of your letter. Misrepresentation of the principles and views 
of an individual, such as you have made of Bishop Hobart, by 
holding him up as the just object of scorn and odium, is calcu- 
lated and designed to awe him into silence, as the only price 
by which he can purchase impunity from these assaults. The 
Episcopal Church may cease to boast of the excellence of her’ 
primitive government, when her Bishops, bound by the nature 
of their office as well as by the most solemn obligations, to 
warn their flocks of error either in principle or policy, are not 


state, us Ido on the best authority, that this has been contrary to his opinion, and 
without his approbation. 
' The writer of this ietter has often indulged in the pleasing idea, that in that reno- 
vated state of the Christian Church for whieh *propheey teaches us tolook, some dis- 
tinctive feature of each Christian denomination would be taken to form the pure cha- 
racter in which the Christian would then appear. And he has thought that the wn- 
ostentatious benevolence of the Society of Friends would then characterize the 
whole Christian family. He'cannot-account for the fact, that some of this retzring” 
society sanction by their presence and participation the bustling parade of Bible 
anniversaries. 

How much more dignified and Christian-like the anniversaries of the venerable So- 
‘gieties in England, for propagating the Gospel-and promoting Christian Knowledge, 
—service and sermen in the temple of God. But this is old-fashioned—wants no 
yelty-—does not admit of making speeches—is not so popular—wants effect. 


91 


to be permitted to discharge their high duties, and to advocate 
their honest opinions and plans, even in a manner acknow- 
ledged to be “courteous, and free: from offensive personali- 
ties,” without being exposed to misrepresentation, denuncia- 
tion, and invective. ‘The episcopal seat, under any circum- 
stances, even when based upon civil power and-ecclesiasti- 
cal patronage, its conscientious occupant will not find ef 
down. But truly in this country, where his principal mean 
of influence rests on public opinion, on the confidence of his 
flock, it is persecution of no slight grade, which, by assailing 
a Bishop with the weapons of misrepresentation, and bold, 
and continued, and vindictive opposition, would seek to rob 
him of that confidence, and by consigning him to cipieilanion 
and censure, consign him to disgrace. 


_ THE WANT OF DELICACY 


decidedly marks the spirit and the manner in which you come 
forward in your Letter. It marks almost every expression 
which you use, and allusion which you make to Bishop Ho- 
bart; the style of your address to whom is often pert, and 
bold, and overbearing. It appears in the personalities of your 
Letter—in the manner in which you so often introduce Go- 
vernor Jay and the Report of the Bedford Prayer Book-So- 
ciety—and particularly i in your introduction of the name of a 
certain individual, and thus reviving recollections that an in- 
genuous, and kind, and noble-minded man, and particularly “a 
** Churchman,” would wish to bury for ever, It appears in 
your gross comparison, utterly without necessity, of the pa- 
rochial zeal and fidelity of your diocesan and his assistant 
clergy, with those of your favourite, the Rector of St.George’s, 
and others. Sir, I have often thrown down my pen with re- 
volting disgust when tracing you in your course, and have 
resumed it with infinite reluctance, only from the imperious 
claims of truth and justice, 

What but a want of delicate regard to feeling and to cha- 
racter, could lead you to impute to those of the Clergy who 
think and act on the subject of Bible Societies with their 


9% 


diocesan, a spirit of unworthy dependence? Sir, has no man 
any conscience, or any independence, unless he thinks and 
acts with you, ina pert, and continued, and persevering op: 
position to Bishop Hebart? It requires no great strength of 
intellect, though doubtless it does a little modest assurance, 
on all occasions to bluster about one’s wdependence. The 
truly independent man talks less about it. 
One would think that it would be a matter of gratification 
to see the Clergy united in principle and in views of policy’ 
with their Bishop. Even admit that, as to the mode of dis- 
tributing the Bible, the Clergy yielded their own opinions to 
that of their diocesan ;-is the point an essential one, on which 
they should obey God rather than man? Without doubt, the’ 
harmony which subsists in this diocese is not very agreeable 
to those who are hostile’ to the official character and prin- 
ciples of Bishop Hobart; and’ no matter what injury results 
to the Church—ruat ecclesia—he must be put dawn. On the 


DISINGENUOUSNESS 


that characterizes your Letter I need not dwell, after having 
pointed out (though the detail is not perfect) the rberigrret 
sentations with which it abounds. 

You are disingenuous in the charge of pa on against 
the Auxiliary New-York Bible and Common Prayer Book So- 
eiety, as to selling Bibles, when, in this respect, they only 
did what is systematically done by the American Bible So- 
ciety—sold Bibles, to those who wished to a them, at 
a reduced price, 

You disingenuously wan haat, nates Hobart as opposed to 
the religious instruction of the seamen, whose case you very 
pathetically, but rather hyperbolically, state; because, as 
you suppose, he was the writer of some pieces, in. which 
Episcopalians are cautioned against contributing to “ the 
“ erection of a Church,” where there was to be precisely the 
‘“‘ admixture of administrations,” against which the ‘+ vener- 
* able Bishop of Pennsylvania” so earnestly cautions. This 
writer doubtless foresaw it must, and would, become the 


\ 


95 


“« Church’? of some one denomination, and it was not difficult 
6 to tell which that would be. It is now, unless I am misin- 
formed, virtually a Presbyterian Church. 

Again. You disingenuously represent Bishop Hobart as 
indifferent, and even opposed, to the propagation of the Gospel 
among the Héathen. And on what grounds? Merely be- 
cause he may think that, under the present circumstances of 
the Episcopal Church, and of the destitute condition of many 
parts of our own country, it is expedient that Episcopalians 
confine their exertions at home, and, of course, (believing 
their own Church at least to be the best,) to the propagation 
of the Gospel, as professed by their own Church :—and be- 
cause, alive, as he must be, to the pressing wants (so fre- 
quently meeting his view, and urged upon him) of his own 
diocese; which presents a most extensive field for Missionary 
labour, he is apprehensive that any systematic plan for Mis- 
sionary collections to be appropriated elsewhere, might seri- 
ously interfere with the Missionary plan of this diocese, es- 
tablished by the canons of the Church. Very principally to 
the operation of this plan does this diocese, under the Divine 
blessing, owe its prosperity,.the Clergy having been nearly 
doubled in number within ten or twelve years; and it is no- 
torious that, in many parts of this state, Episcopal congrega- 
tions could be formed, could Missionary aid be procured. 
On ‘the Missionary plan of this diocese you do not even pass 
“a freezing recommendation.” Doubtless there is a reason 
for this: it would be unpardonable to suppose that you act 
without any reason, and without a powerful one. Bishop 
Hobart is a member, and Chairman of the Committee chosen 
for Missionary purposes by the Convention, and doubtless an 
influential member. ‘The “ Churchman of the diocese of 
‘© New-York,” who will never be easy or quiet until he be- 
comes “ the Bishop of Bizhops,”’ and I fear therefore he will 
be uneasy to the end of his days, has nothing to do with it. 
As far as I know, he does not even contribute to the fund for 
supplying his destitute fellow ‘“‘ Churchmen of the diocese of 
“‘ New-York” with the blessings of the Gospel. I have looked 


94, 


at the Journals of the Conventions, and can find no acepunt 
of any Missionary contribution from the parish at Bedford ; 
but as soon as Missionary exertions are to be commenced wut 
of the diocese, a contribution is raised by three individuals of 
that parish of $150.* The Episcopalians in the new and des- 
titute settlements of the diocese of New-York will doubtless 
feel under great obligations to their ‘ fellow Churchman” for 
the zeal which he manifests for the conversion of the Hea- 
then. This object is prosecuted by a nation, whose richly en- 
dowed Church, and public and private wealth, enable them 
to devote large resources to it. The Episcopal Church in 
this country, depressed as she has been by a variety of cir- 
cumstances beyond her control, stands in need of all the ex- 
ertions and the contributions of her members. To the wants 
of his fellow Churchmen in other dioceses, Bishop Hobart i is 
not, as you seem to admit, indifferent: he earnestly recom- 
mended a collection for Missionary purposes in the diocese 
~ of Ohio, by which, more, it is believed, has been raised in 
New-York, than has yet been raised in all the other dioceses, 
for the General Missionary Society. 

You disingenuously insinuate that the plans of diocesan 
schools in Maryland and Virginia originated since the removal 
of the General Theological Seminary, when you must have 
known, that the measure had been contemplated in those dio- 
ceses previously to that event. You disingenuously accuse 
Bishop Hobart of promoting schism, because he advocates Bi- 
ble and Common Prayer Book Societies in preference to Bi- 
ble Societies. And yet the New-York Bible and Common 
Prayer Book Society was established years before the Ame- 
rican Bible Society ; previously indeed to the establishment 
of any Bible Society in this state. Might it not be said that 
the latter were established in opposition to the former, and 
that they-who support the latter, are guilty of schism. 

* And yet this congregation permitted their Reetor, a very excellent and amiable 
man, to drudge through the streets of New-York, collecting petty subseriptions to 
build him a Parsonage House. Plainness on this subject is rendered necessary by 


the wanton attack made on Bishop Habart’s official principles and conduct by the 
*¢ Churchman.” 


95 


Bui, I repeat it] am weary of my task, and must have 
done.One point more—I name it with expressible relucf- 
ance i-— mn 


THE UNGENTLEMANLY AND UNCHRISTIAN 


tenour and style of the Leiter of ‘a Churchman of the Dio- 
* cese of New-York.” I will not go into details—I rest on 
two instances. 

A Letter was republished in this country, addressed by the 
Rev. Henry Handley Norris, curate of Hackney and Preben- 
dary of Llandaff, to Lord Liverpool. I assert, on the best 
information, that Mr. Norris is a Clergyman of excellent cha- 
racter,-who devotes munificently the income of a large fortune 
to the purposes of pious benevolence.* He has built entirely 
at his own expense, a Chapel im the’ parish of Hackney, and 
made permanent provision for service init. He is a leading 
and active member of the Church of England Societies, for 
Propagating the Gospel, and for Promoting Christian Know- 
ledge, and for National Education. He enjoys the particulary 
confidence of the Bishops of London and Liandaff, and of other 
eminent dignitaries of the Church. He was the intimate 
friend and correspondent of that profound and accomplished 
scholar, and eminent prelate, Bishop Middleton, the late Bi- 
shop of Calcutta.—At the lamented death of this exalted Bi- 
shop, the Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge resolv- 
ed to erect a monument to his memory in St. Paul’s, and 
appropriated £5000 sterling to this object, and appointed, to 
carry it into effect, a Committee consisting of several digni- 
taries of the Church, and distinguished Laymen. In this ob- 
ject, the Society for Propagating the Gospel requested to unite, 
and on their part associated for this purpose with the Com- 
mittee, two Clergymen, the Rev. H. H. Norris, and the Rev. 
J. Lonsdale.f And this Clergyman, the Rev. H. H. Norris, 
the associate (for the purpose of erecting a monument of 


* He has given 100J. sterling to the General Theological Seminary of the Protest- 
ant Episcopal Church in the United States. 
+ Christian Journal, number for May, 1823. 


96 


érateful veneration to the memory of the Bishop of Calcutid,} 
of the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Bishop of London, the 
Bishop of Llandaff, Lord Kenyon, the Archdeacon of London; 
the Archdeacon of Middlesex, the Archdeacon of Colchester, 

and others ; one of two representatives on this occasion of the 

venerable Society for Propagating the Gospel—is styled, by a 
Member of the Protestant Episcopal Church in America, which’ 
is indebted in a great measure to this Society “ for her founda-’ 

“ tion, and a long continuance of nursing care and protection,” 

by a leading member of a congregation, which, unless F am: 

much mistaken, once enjoyed the bounty of this very Séciety 
—amidst many other gentlemanly and Christian designations— 
a “ BLACKGUARD.”* I make no comments. 

One instance more. You are pleased to rank Bishop Ho= 
bart, in his opposition to Bible Spore with the Pope, Mr. 
Cobbet, and the Devil.t 

Has the Bible Society taught its aavonine thus to advance 
its cause—WNV on tali auailio, they will surely say, nec defensori- 
bus istis. Has the Protestant Episcopal Church infused this 
spirit into its members? Is this a specimen of the character of 
a Churchman? And after what we have seen of the tenour and 
style of your letter, is it not sickening, absolutely ‘ nauseous,” 
to hear you indulging ina fine episode on the power and the 
triumphs of Christian faith in the hour of dissolving nature— 
and lecturing your diocesan on the virtues of “ long suffering, 
“ charity, and patience.”’} . 

From the representations of your Letter, a stranger to Bi- 
shop Hobart would suppose that he is not only totally indif- 
ferent, but even opposed to the progress of true religion—2a 
violent and rash stickler for the unessentials of Christianity. 
Of his qualities as a Christian you say nothing—nothing of 
his character as a Bishop. As the Rector of a parish, you 
broadly insinuate that he is a “ careless shepherd ;?§ and 
your readers are left to conclude that the only way in which 


* Letter, p. 75. 7 Page 46, 46, 47. + Page 79, 80. ' § Page 67. 


97 


Bishop Hobart exercises “‘ the talents, the zeal, and the ac- 
“ quirements,” which you coldly assign him, is in an inve- 
terate combination with the Pope, Mr, Cobbet, and the Devil, 
in an “ opposition to the distribution of the uncommented 
“ Scriptures.””* You could not suppose indeed that those who 
know Bishop Hebart would admit your representations ; but, 
through your industry in dispersing your Letter, how many 
hundreds in this country, and ‘elsewhere, will take their opi- 
nion of Bishop Hobart from the portrait which you have 
sketched. I do not wish to disturb the satisfaction which this 
expectation doubtless affords you. 
_~ Will you plead in justification of this attempt to destroy the 
official character and influence of Bishop Hobart, and thus to 
injure the diocese of which he has the charge, that it as neces- 
sary to the Bible cause ? Doubtless, this has much weight with 
you. ‘There is a great disposition in some of the advocates 
of this cause, to justify the end by the means ; and, in my con- 
science, I believe you love the Bible Society quite as much 
(I doubt whether this is making your love for the Bible So- 
ciety a very strong passion) as you do your Church. But you 
have not even this plea; for, by your own confession, the 
Bible Society has been benefited instead of injured by Bishop 
Hobart’s opposition to it.t 
In conclusion—Let me give you some advice, which, how- 
ever it may be received, is really well intended; and I will 
give it to you in the words of that volume, for the distribution 
of which vou are, it must be admitted, a very zealous, but, [ 
cannot think, very fortunate advocate. ‘“* Study to be quiet, 
and to mind your own business?‘ Think not more highly 
*¢ of yourself than you ought to think.”” Elated by an adventi- 
tious circumstance, (no man has any merit in being born with 
a particular name,) and inordinately vain of some readiness, 
flippancy, and command of language, and (to do you justice) 
of no common industry in any cause that excites your pas- 
sions, you seem to think yourself privileged to say any thing 


* Letter, p. 3. Tq Letter, p.°3. 


N 


oe ae 


98 


of “ your Bishop,” that comes into your mind, or answers! — 
your purpose ; and, as an oracle, to pronounce, in all Church — 
matters, your decision, and to expect “ your Bishop” and his’ 
Clergy to bow to it. And yet you will hereafter, I think, find 
yourself, as hitherto, in a woeful mistake. The real Church- 
men of the diocese of New-York will not be shackled by your 
authority; and “ your Bishop” and his Clergy, or I greatly 
overrate their good sense and good principles, will do what ~ 
seemeth to them right, without troubling themselves much as 
to the denunciations which their conduct may excite in the 

‘** Churchman of the diocese of New-York,” or the invectives 
which it may call forth from him. At least, so most assuredly 
will one, who, notwithstanding the plainness with which he 
has thought it his duty to deal with you, is entirely yous 
well-wisher. 

CORRECTOR. © 
New-York, May 16, 1823. 


Date Due 


8 le 


x 
2 


ge 


Demco 293-5 


NZ-Z98 


sd LZ987c00 
VONIAONIAIU I 


soueqr Aysuenun 


